A 
SPEECH 

Prepared  for  Delivery 

BEFORE  THE 

SYNOD  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA, 
October,  1839, 

OK   THE   REFERENCE   TO   THAT   •TVO» 

By  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville 

OF  THE  CASE  OF 

THE  REV.  SIMEON  COLTON. 


BY  THE  REV.  COLIN  M'lVER, 

A     MEMBER    OF    THAT    PRESBYTERY    AND     SYNOD. 


GBERJUPs 
PRINTOD  BY  WM.  POTTE*. 

Mt>ee««L. 


PREFACE. 


Of  the  following  Speech,  only  some  detached  parts  were  delivered 
before  the  Synod.  Such  parts  as  the  author  deemed  most  important 
and  necessary  to  the  full  elucidation  of  the  subject  herein  discussed, 
were  unavoidably  omitted  in  the  delivery,  in  consequence  of  a  decision, 
of  the  Moderator  of  Synod,  on  a  point  of  order,  by  which,  all  remarks 
on  Mr.  Cotton's  defence  before  the  Presbytery,  were  declared  to  be 
improper.  Although  the  author  considered  this  decision,  as  alike  er- 
roneous and  unjust;  yet,  for  various  prudential  reasons,  he  declined 
making  any  appeal  to  the  Synod;  and  submitted  to  the  Moderator's 
judgment,  even  under  the  serious  disadvantage,  of  making,  at  the  time, 
a  very  meagre,  and  to  himself  at  least,  unsatisfactory  representation  of 
the  case. 

With  this  simple  statement,  he  sends  his  speech  to  the  Press,  from 
a  desire  to  make  some  of  his  brethren,  who  have  heretofore  had  no  op- 
portunity of  examining  this  interesting  case,  somewhat  acquainted  with 
its  merits.     May  the  Divine  blessing  attend  the  effort. 


SPEECH,  &c. 


Moderator: 

What  I  said,  in  reference  to  the  subject  now 
under  consideration,  when  this  painful  process  was  before  the  Presby- 
tery, was  chiefly  founded  on  a  few  brief  notes,  which  I  hastily  wrote, 
at  the  Clerk's  table,  during  the  delivery  of  Mr.  Colton's  diffuse  and 
elaborate  defence.  Since  that  time,  the  defence  I  speak  of  has,  after 
having  undergone  its  author's  revision,  and  probably  his  best  correc- 
tions, passed  through  the  press;  and  I  have  had,  as  it  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed, that  you,  Sir,  and  the  other  brethren  of  this  Synod  have  also 
had,  an  opportunity  of  giving  it  a  leisurely  perusal;  and  1  think  it  not  in- 
consistent with  the  character  of  my  office,  as  an  ambassador  of  Christ, 
and  the  duty  I  owe  to  his  church,  to  trouble  you,  and  my  brethren  of 
this  Synod,  with  a  few  additional  remarks,  on  so  extraordinary  a  per- 
formance. Extraordinary  I  esteem  it,  Sir,  not  from  the  tendency  of 
any  thing  that  it  contains,  to  inform  the  inquiring  mind,  or  to  enlight- 
en the  darkened  or  bewildered  understanding,  (for  I  find  it  entirely 
destitute  of  every  such  quality,)  but  from  the  rare  and  conspicuous 
combination  it  exhibits,  of  the  distinguishing  qualities  of  the  author's 
mind. — insomuch,  that,  had  it  been,  like  its  predecessor,  "sent  out 
anonymously,"  "that  it  might  stand  on  its  own  merits,"  there  would, 
probably,  be  little  or  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  its  paternity.  In  this 
sense,  Sir,  it  has,  certainly  a  just  claim  to  the  appellation  of  an  extra- 
ordinary performance.  At  all  times,  Moderator,  but  especially  while 
acting  in  the  capacity  of  Judges,  we  are  bound  to  be  just  to  all.  From 
no  one,  whatever  be  his  character  or  conduct,  are  we  at  liberty  to  with- 
hold his  just  due.  Even  from  one,  whose  conduct,  I  am  constrained, 
from  an  imperious  sense  of  duty,  to  view  with  disapprobation,  I  never 
will  consent  to  withhold,  that  to  which  he  has  a  lawful  and  equitable 
claim.  I  frankly  acknowledge,  therefore,  that,  in  my  judgment,  those 
productions  of  The  Rev.  Simeon  Colton's  pen,  which  occupy  so  large 
a  portion  of  this  pamphlet,  are  altogether  inimitable.  He  has  a  style  of 
composition  which  is  peculiar  to  himself;  and  if  the  man  is  any  where 
to  be  found,  who  is  capable  of  being  his  successful  imitator,  I  must 
give  him  credit  for  a  larger  share  of  ingenuity,  than  is  possessed  by 
any,  with  whom  it  has  ever  fallen  to  my  lot  to  become  acquainted. — 
Yes,  Sir:  Those  productions  are,  indeed,  unique.  Whoever  carefully 
analyzes  them,  will  find  them  to  be  a  singular  compound,  of  glaring  in- 


consistencies,  gross  perversions,  fallacious  reasonings,  and  other  kin- 
dred qualities.  That,  of  whidh,  at  one  time,  the  author  professes  his 
utter  abhorrence,  and  labours  to  hold  up  to  the  abhorrence  of  all  his  read 
ers,  at  another  time,  he  exemplifies,  most  conspicuously,  in  his  own 
conduct.  There  is  scarcely  any  thing,  against  which,  he  labors  to  ex- 
cite the  indignation  of  his  readers,  with  more  vehement  zeal,  than  dic- 
tation; and  yet,  in  the  productions  of  his  pen  now  under  consideration, 
we  find  a  variety  of  specimens  of  the  most  arrogant  dictation.  So  prom- 
inent, indeed,  does  this  characteristic  feature  appear,  that  I  have  heard 
the  remark  made,  once  and  again,  by  men  of  strong  intellect  and  sound 
judgment,  that  a  stranger,  to  hear  Mr.  Colton's  defence  read,  would 
naturally  suppose, — not  that  the  Presbytery  were  trying  him,  but,  that 
he  was  trying  the  Presbytery.  But,  that  I  may  detain  you  no  longer 
with  introductory,  or  general  remarks,  I  proceed  to  select,  for  more  par- 
ticular examination,  a  few  specimens  of  these  singular  writings. 

In  the  printed  introduction  to  his  "Defence  and  Pleadings,''  he  tells 
us,  that  his  "defence  was  commenced  by  examining  a  few  witnesses, 
to  shew,  that  the  report  of  the  committee  made  on  the  pamphlet  at 
Beth-car  chureh,  was  acted  upon,  without  proper  examination.''  The 
question,  here,  is.  Did  he  succeed,  in  proving  the  fact  which  he  here  as- 
serts? If  he  did,  1  readily  grant,  that  his  defence  was,  indeed,  well 
begun-  But,  Moderator,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  asserting  is 
one  thing,  and  proving  quite  another.  But,  let  us  inquire  into  his 
success,  in  this  particular.  The  record  of  the  testimony  which  he  here 
refers  to,  is  printed  on  Page  xi  of  the  pamphlet;  and  I  will  take  the  li- 
berty of  submitting  this  testimony,  together  with  his  comments  thereon, 
to  the  judgment  of  this  Reverend  Synod.  Here,  Sir,  is  the  testimony. 
"The  following  interrogatories  were  addressed  to  Mr.  McCallum,  and 
answered  as  follows: — 

"Question."  "Were  you  at  Beth-car  church,  at  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery  in  April,  sitting  as  a  member?'' 

"Answer."     "Yes.' 

'$.'  "Did  you  hear  a  report  of  a  committee  read  on  the  subject  of  a 
Pamphlet  called  Presbuteros?" 

*A.'     "I  did." 

<$.'  "Had  you  ever  read  the  pamphlet  called  Presbuteros,  previous 
to  that  time?'' 

'.#.'     "1  had  not." 

"The  same  interrogatories  were  addressed  to  Mr.  McDonald,  and  the 
same  answers  were  given.'' 

On  this  testimony,  Mr.  Colton,  in  his  defence,  Page  28  of  the  Pam- 
phlet, makes  the  following  comments.  "  You  have  heard  the  testimony 
of  two  of  the  members  of  that  Presbytery,  given  here  under  oath.  They 
say  first,  that  they  voted  for  the  acceptance  of  the  report,  and  at  the 
same  time  say,  that  they  never  read,  or  saw  the  pamphlet,  till  after  the 
report  was  accepted.  You  have  also  the  declaration  of  the  very  minister 
who  introduced  the  business  before  the  Presbytery,  that  he  had  not  read 


the  pamphlet  till  he  came  to  that  piace.  The  space  of  time  intervening 
between  the  introduction  and  acceptance  was  short,  too  short  for  any 
comparison,  or  examination  of  the  subject.  No  comparison  was  made, 
and  very  few  could  have  known  whether  the  references  were  correct  or 
not.  What  then  shall  be  said,  or  thought  of  men  thus  giving  a  vote  in 
a  solemn  assembly,  and  professedly  in  the  fear  of  God,  when  they  did 
not  even  know  whether  the  charges  they  were  approving  were  true  or 
false  ?  What  shall  we  say  of  men,  who  give  their  vote  to  condemn  a 
book  as  false  and  slanderous,  when  they  had  never  read  a  sentence  in 
that  book,  and  could  not  testify,  that  a  single  condemned  sentence  was 
there  ?  The  whole  proceeding  is  of  such  an  extraordinary  character 
that  it  requires  the  greatest  stretch  of  charity  to  believe  that  men  acted 
honestlv,  who  acted  thus.  First  condemn  a  book  as  containg  all  sorts 
of  evil  ;  then  single  out  an  individual  and  call  upon  him  to  say  whether 
he  is  the  author  or  not.  And  this  too  done  by  some,  who  till  that  time 
did  not  even  know  that  there  was  such  a  book  in  existence,  and  before 
any  had  sufficient  opportunity  to  examine  and  compare  the  extracts 
with  the  original.  Even  ministers  of  the  gospel,  not  only  countenancing, 
but  directly  joining  in  this  short  hand  proscription,  and  condemnation, 
without  examination!!"    See  also  P.  39. 

"I  cannot,  however,''  sajs  Mr.  Colton,  "dismiss  this  paper,  without 
offering  a  few  remarks  upon  the  manner  in  which  it  was  got  up.  Its 
history  is  worthy  of  notice.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  at 
Bethcar  church,  a  member,  after  making  some  remarks  upon  the  general 
character  of  the  pamphlet,  proposed  that  a  committee  should  be  appointed 
to  examine  its  contents  and  make  a  report  at  that  meeting,  and  asked 
that  he  might  be  allowed  to  nominate  that  committee.  This  request 
was  granted.  The  committee  was  appointed,  and  the  person  placed  at 
the  head,  in  whose  hand  writing  the  report  appeared.  In  a  time  far 
too  short  to  admit  of  being  written  at  that  place,  the  report  was  made, 
thus  proving  beyond  all  question,  that  it  had  been  previously  prepared, 
and  got  up  for  the  occasion.  The  circumstances  alluded  to,  also  shew 
that  the  business  had  been  a  matter  of  previous  consultation  and 
arrangement.  And  judging  from  the  whole  complexion  of  the  affair,  it 
is  obvious  there  had  somewhere  been  a  caucus,  that,'  in  this  caucus,  a 
plan  had  been  concocted,  to  bring  up  this  pamphlet,  pass  censure  upon 
it,  and  endeavour  to  compel  the  author  to  come  out  and  avow  himself, 
and  thus  cut  him  oft"  from  the  Presbytery.  That  such  a  plan  was  con- 
cocted, and  known  to  the  leaders  of  the  party,  is  further  proved,  from 
an  intimation  given  in  a  piece  published  in  the  Fayetteville  Observer  a 
little  time  previous  to  the  Session  of  Presbytery  over  the  signature  of 
*£.  bona  fide  Presbyterian.'  That  piece  is  understood  to  have  been 
written  by  a  person,  who  is  in  the  secrets  of  the  party.  In  that,  the 
author,  after  throwing  out  a  torrent  of  invective  against  Presbuteros, 
and  hinting,  who  the  author  might  be,  remarked  that  he  might  have  an 
opportunity,  at  Hhe  coming  Presbytery,  to  make  his  declaration.'  The 
obvious  import  of  the  hint  thus  given  is,  that  such  arrangements  were 


making  as  would  compel  the  author  to  declare  himself  in  opposition  to 
the  Presbytery.  The  refusal,  however,  to  answer  the  question  relating 
to  authorship,  if  put,  prevented  any  decisive  action  at  that  time,  and 
compelled  the  movers  of  the  measure  to  undertake  the  proof  by  a 
process  of  adjudication.'' 

Such,  Moderator,  is  the  manner,  in  which  Mr.  Colton  seems  to  have 
persuaded  himself,  and  if  he  could,  would  persuade  the  public,  that  we 
acted,  in  this  important  matter,  without  due  examination.  That  he 
might  have  no  ground  to  complain  of  injustice,  or  any  pretence  to  talk 
about  "garbling,''  I  have  quoted  all  his  comments  on  our  act,  respect- 
ing the  pamphlet  of  Presbuteros.  Alas!  Sir,  How  very  criminally  did 
the  brethren  act,  in  presuming  to  hold  a  previous  consultation,  without 
first  consulting  Mr.  Colton!  But  who  is  there,  Sir,  in  this  Reverend 
Synod,  not  blinded  by  prejudice,  that  cannot  at  once  perceive,  that  all 
this  vituperative  declamation  is  alike  irrelevant  and  erroneous  as  well 

as    UTTERLY    DESTITUTE    OF    THE    SLIGHTEST     CLAIMS    TO    SOLIDITY?       It 

is  irrelevant,  because  even  without  inquiring  whether  the  Presbytery, 
at  Bethcar,  acted  either  on  slight  or  solid  ground,  the  positions  on 
which  he  here  insists,  even  if  he  could  clearly  establish  them,  could 
have  no  application  whatever,  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery,  at 
Fayetteville,  before  whom,  his  defence  was  delivered.  For,  at  that 
meeting,  and  sometime  before  the  delivery  of  his  defence,  the  pamphlet 
of  Presbuteros,  at  full  length,  was  read,  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  Pres- 
bytery, by  the  stated  clerk,  and  in  a  voice  so  clear  and  distinct,  that 
it  must  have  been  sufficiently  impressed  on  the  mind  of  every  person,  dis- 
posed to  listen  to  it,with  due  attention.  The  declamation  I  here  notice,  is 
also  erroneous,  because,  it  not  only  takes  for  granted  what  remains  to 
be  proved,  but  asserts  that,  which  has  not,  even  the  shadow  of  a  foun- 
dation for  its  support.  Where,  Sir,  is  the  evidence,  that  there  was  any 
one  in  the  Presbytery,  at  Bethcar,  "who,  till  that  time,  did  not  even 
knovj  that  there  was  such  a  book  in  existence^  as  the  pamphlet  of  Pies 
buteros  ?  I  venture  to  say,  Sir,  that,  if  there  be  any  evidence  of  this, 
it  is  to  be  found,  only  in  Mr.  Colton's  fertile  imagination.  True,  there 
were  some  of  the  members,  who,  till  that  time,  had  never  read  it,  and 
probably,  had  never  seen  it, — but  all  had  heard  much  about  it,  and 
about  the  mischief  it  was  producing;  and  it  was  this  fact,  which  crea- 
ted the  necessity  for  making  that  famous  pamphlet,  a  subject  of  inquiry 
and  investigation.  And,  after  all,  Sir,  what  proof  has  he  furnished, 
"that  the  report  of  the  committee  made  on  the  pamphlet  at  Bethcar 
church,  was  acted  upon,"  as  he  asserts  "without  proper  examination?'' 
Wonderful  proof,  indeed!  He  has  proved,  that,  out  of  from  25  to  SO 
members  who  attended  that  memorable  meeting,  there  were  as  many  as 
two,  who  voted  for  the  acceptance  of  the  report,  without  having  read 
the  pamphlet! !  Does  this  prove,  that  there  was  a  majority  in  Presbyte- 
ry who  had  not  read  it?  No  one  will  pretend  that  it  does;  and  if  it  does 
not,  with  what  face  can  he  say,  that  the  Presbytery  acted,  in  this  case, 
without  proper  examination?    He  thinks,  however,  that  he  has  accora- 


plished  much,  in  the  way  of  proving  his  position,  when  he  6ays,  "You 
nave  also  the  declaration  of  the  very  minister  who  introduced  the  busi- 
ness before  the  Presbytery,  that  he  had  not  read  the  pamphlet  tillhe  came 
to  that  place. v  True,  Moderator  : — but,  it  spoils  the  triumph  of  this, 
To  be  reminded  of  the  fact,  that  that  same  minister,  at  the  same  time 
declared,  that  he /tad  read  the  pamphlet,  and  that  carefully,  so  carefully 
as  to  be  pretty  well  satisfied  of  its  paternity,  before  he  introduced  the 
subject  in  Presbytery.  But,  Sir,  aside  from  this  entire  failure  of  proof, 
it  is  easy  to  perceive,  that  his  irrelevant  and  erroneous  strictures  on 
this  transaction,  are  utterly  destitute  of  the  slightest  claim  to 
solidity.  To  be  convinced  of  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  advert,  for 
a  moment,  to  the  palpable,  and  I  must  add,  inexcusable  ignorance,  not 
only  of  the  usages  prevailing  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  but  even  of 
the  universal  practice  of  all  deliberative  assemblies,  civil  or  ecclesias- 
tical, which  his  remarks  on  this  topic  so  conspicuously  betray.  Of  what 
use  or  advantage  is  it,  Sir,  to  appoint  committees  to  examine  documents, 
and  report  on  them,  if  no  credit  is  to  be  given  to  their  quotations,  or 
statements,  or  representations?  And  who  does  not  know,  that  it  is  the 
common  practice,  in  secular  bodies  from  the  State  Legislatures  to  Con- 
gress, and  in  Ecclesiastical  bodies,  from  our  Sessions  to  our  General 
Assembly,  to  appoint  committees  for  the  examination  of  documents,  to 
act  and  vote  on  their  reports,  without  thinking  it  necessary,  previously 
to  read  the  documents  reported  on?  Is  it  not  possible,  Sir,  clearly  to 
ascertain  the  sentiments  of  an  author,  by  due  attention  to  an  expression 
of  these  sentiments,  embraced  in  quotations,  fairly  made,  from  a  book 
which  he  has  published, — without  reading  every  word  contained  in 
that  book!  The  Rev.  John  Newton,  of  excellent  memory,  was  once 
urged  to  read  a  book,  which,  on  glancing  over  a  few  pages  of  it,  he  had 
discovered  to  be  erroneous,  but  he  declined  reading  it,  and  when  the 
question  was  proposed  to  him,  how  he  could,  with  a  good  conscience, 
pronounce  it  erroneous,  without  having  previously  read  it,  he  made  this 
very  sensible  reply.  "I  know,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  2  and  2  are  equal 
to  4.  And  if  the  title  page  of  alarge  and  unwieldy  folio  were  to  inform 
me,  that  it  was  the  author's  design  to  prove,  that  2  and  2  are  equal  to  7, 
I  should  not  consider  myself  under  an  obligation  to  submit  to  the  irk- 
some drudgery  of  reading  1000  folio  pages,  before  I  could  warrantably 
pronounce  it  an  absurdity."  Yet,  according  to  Mr.  Colton's  views, 
Mr.  Newton  was  guilty  of  great  injustice,  in  acting  under  the  influence 
of  such  reasoning.  And  so,  also,  according  to  Mr.  Colton's  ideas  of  jus- 
tice and  propriety,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
1810,  must  have  greatly  erred,  when  they  condemned  the  doctrines  of 
the  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Davis's  Gospel  Plan,  barely  on  the  report  of  a 
committee  whom  they  had  appointed  to  examine  Mr.  Davis's  Book, 
inasmuch  as  every  member  of  that  assembly  had  not  read  Mr.  Davis's 
large  Octavo,  from  beginning  to  end.  But  will  this  Reverend  Synod, 
sanction  such  superficial  reasoning?  Sir,  I  trust  not.  Mr.  Colton  has, 
in  his  defence,  made  many  remarks,  with  a  view  of  shewing  the  in.com- 
2 


10 

petency  of  the  Presbytery  to  try  him,  merely  because,  of  the  two  modes 
pointed  out  in  the  constitution  of  our  church,  in  which  an  offence  may 
be  brought  before  a  judicatory,  the  Presbysery  have  chosen  to  try  him, 
by  common  fame.  But  as  most  of  these  remarks,  have  been  fully 
answered  in  Presbytery,  and  especially  by  my  worthy  brother,  the  Rev. 
Alex'r.  M'lver,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary,  at  this  time,  to  make  them 
a  subject  of  much  more  animadversion.  There  is,  however,  one  para- 
graph which  the  accused  has  written,  with  the  design,  as  I  presume,  of 
illustrating  this  point,  which  I  look  upon  as  in  itself  so  much  of  a  curi- 
osity, that  I  cannot  resist  the  desire  to  make  it  the  subject  of  a  passing 
notice.  It  is  found  on  the  20th  page  of  the  pamphlet;  and  is  thus  ex- 
pressed: ''Further:  The  existence  of  a  trial  implies  a  right  of  appeal 
in  case  the  judgment  does  not  meet  the  approbation  of  the  parties.  In 
the  present  case,  the  right  of  appeal  can  be  exercised  only  on  one  side. 
If  the  defendant  wishes,  he  may  appeal  from  the  decision  made  in  this 
court.  But  to  suppose  the  Presbytery  can  appeal  from  their  own  judg- 
ment, is  an  absurdity;  and  to  talk  of  Fama  C/amosa,  as  appealing,  is  non- 
sense. Had  there  been  only  an  inquiry  into  the  correctness  of  a  rumor, 
as  ought  to  have  been  the  case,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  an 
appeal  on  the  side  of  the  plaintiff,  for  all  that  could  happen  against  that 
side  would  be  an  acquittal  of  the  defendant,  for  want  of  evidence.— 
But,  by  instituting  a  charge  and  trial,  is  implied  that  the  plaintiff  may 
be  aggrieved  by  the  decision  as  well  as  the  defendant.  In  that  condi- 
tion, the  present  plaintiff  can  have  no  appeal." 

On  this  paragraph,  it  is  obvious  to  remark,  that,  in  its  general  com- 
plexion, it  has  much  more  the  appearance  of  an  objection  urged,  by  some 
cavilling  enemy  of  Presbyterianism,  to  a  particular  provision  in  the  con- 
stitution of  our  church,  than,  to  any  thing  which  can  properly  belong 
to  the  defence  of  a  Minister  of  that  church,  under  trial,  complaining  of 
a  violation  of  that  constitution,  in  conducting  the  process  against  him. 
As  to  the  distinction  which  Mr.  Colton  makes,  in  this  paragraph,  and 
elsewhere,  between  an  inquiry  and  a  process,  it  is  a  distinction,  not 
known  to  our  Constitution.  There  is,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  no  other  method  known,  of  inquiring  into  the  truth  of 
any  scandal  or  offence,  but  the  institution  of  a  Process.  But,  it  seems, 
somewhat  singular,  that  a  defendant  should  complain,  that,  in  case  of  a 
decision  favour  able  to  himself,  there  should,  in  consequence  of  the  mode 
of  trial  instituted,  be,  in  his  apprehension,  no  plaintiff,  who  may  be  at 
liberty  to  appeal  from  that  decision,  to  a  superior  court.  Methinks, 
Moderator,  this  is  carrying  disinterested  benevolence  to  an  extent  far  be- 
yond what  I  should  be  led  to  expect,  from  the  man  who  now  stands 
arraigned,  at  the  bar  of  this  Synod.  But,  as  this  seeming  defect  ap- 
pears somewhat  to  distress  him,  I  shall  endeavour  to  afford  him  some 
relief,  by  pointing  out  to  him  a  constitutional  provision,  which  seems  to 
have  escaped  his  attention.  It  is,  then,  one,  among  the  many  excellen- 
cies of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  that  it  secures,  to 
every  aggrieved  individual,  a  judicial  hearing.     Even  in  such  a  case  as 


11 

the  one  now  pending  before  this  Synod,  this  redress  is  open  to  any  and 
every  person,  who  may  be  disposed  to  seek  it.  Does  Mr.  Colton  ask, 
where  it  is  to  be  found?  Let  him  open  our  Book  of  Discipline,  ch.  VII. 
S.  IV.  S,  S.  Ill  and  V.;  and  he  will  find  it,  in  these  words:  "The 
judgment  of  an  inferior  judicatory  may  b«  favourable  to  the  only  party 
who  has  been  placed  at  their  bar,  or  the  judgment  in  question  may  do 
no  wrong  to  any  individual,  or  the  party  who  is  aggrieved  by  it  may 
decline  the  trouble  of  conducting  an  appeal.  In  any  of  these  cases,  no 
appeal  is  to  be  expected.  And  yet,  the  judgment  may  appear  to  some 
of  the  members  of  the  judicatory,  to  be  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  church,  injurious  to  the  interests  of  religion,  and  calculated  to  de- 
grade the  character  of  those  who  have  pronounced  it.  In  this  case,  the 
minority  have  not  only  a  right  to  record,  in  the  minutes  of  the  judica- 
tory, their  dissent  from  this  judgment,  or  their  protest  against  it,  but 
they  have  also  a  right  to  complain  to  the  superior  judicatory.  This 
complaint  brings  the  whole  poceedings  in  the  case,  under  the  review 
of  the  superior  judicatory;  and  if  the  complaint  appears  to  be  well  foun- 
ded, it  may  have  the  effect,  not  only  of  drawing  down  censure  upon 
those  who  concurred  in  the  judgment  complained  of;  but  also  of  rever- 
sing that  judgment,  and  placing  matters  in  the  same  situation  in  which 
they  were,  before  the  judgment  was  pronounced.''  You  perceive,  then, 
Moderator,  that,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  Mr.  Colton  has  hitherto  been 
disquieting  himself  in  vain.  He  may  now,  Sir,  dismiss  his  grief  on  this 
score,  and  take  consolation  from  the  fact,  that,  should  a  maj-ority  of  this 
Synod  acquit  him  of  the  charge  and  specifications,  under  which  we  are 
now  trying  him,  and  should  the  minority  consider  the  judgment,  by 
which  such  acquittal  may  be  secured,  "contrary  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  church,  injurious  to  the  interests  of  religion,  and  calculated  to  de- 
grade the  charactor  of  those  who  have  pronounced  it,"  such  minority 
will  have  a  right  to  complain  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  body 
may  reverse  their  judgment. 

At  the  close  of  Page  20,  Mr.  Colton  speaks  of  what  he  calls  the  "In- 
dictment,"  as  not  being  "well  laid."  Possibly,  this  may  be  true.  It 
fell  to  my  painful  lot,  to  prepare  the  instrument  he  thus  designates;  and 
it  becomes  me  to  speak  with  diffidence,  of  my  own  performance;  and, 
as  I  was  not  bred  a  lawyer,  it  is  possible,  I  may  not  have  drawn  it  up, 
with  careful  reference  to  all  those  technical  formalities  usuallv  required 
by  civil  courts;  yet,  I  believe,  that  no  very  essential  flaw  can  be  found 
in  it;  and  if,  in  the  discharge  of  the  painful  duty,  to  which,  in  the  Prov- 
idence of  God,  we  are  now  called,  we  keep  constantly  before  us,  the 
essential  requisitions  of  the  great  code  of  laws,  which  we  have  adopted 
to  govern  our  faith  and  practice,  I  mean,  the  statutes  of  our  Divine 
Lawgiver,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and  reduced  to  a  system  in  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church, — we  need  not  be  over  solicitious, 
if  some  small  subordinate  formalities  should  happen  to  be  overlooked. 
But,,  let  us  inquire,  for  a  moment,  how  Mr.  Colton  supports  his  asser- 
tion, when  he  affirms,  that  "the  indictment,"  as  he  calls  it.  is  not  well 


12 

laid?"  In  the  commencement  of  Page  21,  he  thus  speaks  of  it.  "It  is 
said  to  be  founded  on  chap.  XX.  S.  IV.  of  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
That  article  has  reference  to  the  publication  of  principles,  which  are  so 
marked  in  their  character  as  to  be  subversive  of  Gospel  purity  and 
truth.  It  relates  to  the  publication  of  Infidel  sentiments,  and  such  no- 
torious heresies  as  Antinomianism,Unitarianism,  or  Universalism; — not 
to  "opinions  given  upon  controverted  points,  about  discipline  or  church 
politics.''  Let  us  now,  Moderator,  look  at  the  language  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  in  the  article  referred  to,  and  see,  how  far  we  may 
safely  confide  in  Mr.  Colton,  as  an  Interpreter  ot  that  book.  "  And 
because  the  powers  which  God  hath  ordained,  and  the  liberty  which 
Christ  hath  purchased,  are  not  intended  by  God  to  destroy,  but  mutu- 
ally to  uphold  and  preserve  one  another;  they  who,  upon  pretence  of 
christian  liberty,  shall  oppose  any  lawful  power,  or  the  lawful  exercise 
of  it,  whether  it  be  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  resist  the  ordinance  of  God. 
And  for  their  publishing  of  such  opinions,  or  maintaining  of  such  prac- 
tices, as  are  contrary  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  to  the  known  principles 
of  Christianity,  whether  concerning  faith,  worship,  or  conversation;  or 
to  the  power  of  godliness;  or  sucli  erroneous  opinions  and  practices,  as 
either  in  their  own  nature,  or  in  the  manner  of  publishing  and  maintain- 
ing them,  are  destructive  to  the  external  peace  and  order  which  Christ 
hath  established  in  the  church;  they  may  lawfully  be  called  to  account 
and  proceeded  against,  by  the  censures  of  the  church.''  This,  Moder- 
ator, is  the  passage,  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  which,  Mr.  Colton  would 
persuade  us,  if  he  could,  should  be  restricted  in  its  application,  to  '  the 
publication  of  Infidel  sentiments,  or  such  notorious  heresies  as  Anti- 
nomianism,  Unitarianism,  or  Universalism.'*'  But,  Sir,  let  me  ask,  is 
there  a  candid  member  of  this  Synod,  who  does  not  clearly  perceive, 
that  it  extends  much  further?  Does  any  man  inquire,  what  part  of  this 
passage,  is  properly  applicable  to  what  Mr.  Colton  has  published,  in 
the  Letters  of  "Presbuteros?"  Let  him  look  at  the  concluding  clause; 
and  he  may  read  these  words: — "such  erroneous  opinions  and  practices, 
as  either  in  their  own  nature,  or  in  the  manner  of  publishing  and  main- 
taining them,  are  destructive  to  the  external  peace  and  order  which 
Christ  hath  established  in  his  Church."  Mr.  Colton's  interpretation  of 
this  passage,  however,  is  pretty  much  of  a  piece  with  his  other  interpre- 
tations of  some  parts  of  our  Book  of  Discipline.  Somewhere  about  the 
middle  of  Page  21  he  says,  "The  Book  of  Discipline  requires,  that,  in 
all  cases  of  charge,  there  should  be  frequent  conferences  with  the  ac- 
cused,to  endeavour  to  bring  him  to  a  sense  of  his  guilt.''  Where,  Moder- 
ator, does  our  Book  require  this?  Mr.  Colton  refers  us  to  ch.  V.  S.  XIV. 
Let  us  look  at  it.  "A  minister  under  process  for  heresy,  or  schism, 
should  be  treated  with  christian  and  brotherly  tenderness.  Frequent 
conferences  ought  to  be  held  with  him,  and  proper  admonitions  admin- 
istered. For  some  more  dangerous  errors,  however,  suspension  may 
become  necessary."  Is  this,  Sir,  a  requisition  of  "frequent  confer- 
ences"— "in  all  cases  of  charge?''     To  me,    this  is  by  no  means  clear. 


13 

But,  perhaps,  Mr.  Colton  will  say,  it  is  a  requisition,  in  one  case  of 
charge?  and  that  he  has  a  right  to  presume  or  infer  front  this,  that  it  was 
intended  to  extend  to  all  cases,  unless  I  can  prove  the  contrary.  Well, 
Sir,  altho'  I  do  not  think  it  altogether  fair,  thus  to  throw  the  onus  pro  - 
bandi  upon  me,  when  there  is  nothing,  either  in  the  text  or  context  that 
can  give  the  least  countenance  to  the  inference  in  question,  I  will  even 
assume  the  onus  probandi  in  this  case,  and  refer  Mr.  Colton  to  chapter 
III.  S.  IV.  "When  any  person  is  charged  with  a  crime,  not  by  an  indi- 
vidual, or  individuals,  coining  forward  as  accusers,  but  by  general  ru- 
mour, the  previous  steps  prescribed  by  our  Lord  in  case  of  private  of- 
fences, are  not  necessary;  but  the  proper  judicatory  is  bound  to  take 
immediate  cognizance  of  the  affair."  Although  Mr.  Colton  ought  to 
have  known,  that  this  article  of  our  Book  of  discipline  clearly  proves, 
that  the  privilege  of  being  conferred  with,  in  cases  of  charge,  was  not 
at  all  applicable  to  his  case;  yet,  in  his  defence,  he  complains  dolefully 
of  the  neglect  of  it.  In  Page  49,  he  says,  "None  of  those  steps  have 
been  taken,  which  christian  kindness,  the  Gospel,  and  our  standards 
require.  The  end  of  discipline  is  the  good  of  the  offender,  as  well  as 
the  purification  of  the  church.  For  this  reason,  it  is  suitable,  and  the 
gospel  requires,  that  the  accused  be  treated  with  the  utmost  kindness: 
that  frequent  conferences  be  held  with  him,  in  order  that  he  may  be  re- 
claimed. How  CAN  MY  BRETHREN  EXCUSE  THEMSELVES  FOR  THIS  NEG- 
LECT, in  the  present  case,  if  the  conduct  for  which  I  am  censured,  is 
so  censurable  as  is  presumed?  Will  they  say  they  supposed  this  would 
be  useless?  How  do  they  know  that?  Can  any  brother  on  this  floor 
say,  he  has  ever  found  me  unwilling  to  receive  advice?"*  But,  Modera- 
tor, although  he  has  made  this  pathetic  complaint  to  the  Presbytery,  I 
presume,  he  will  hardly  thus  complain,  of  the  Presbytery,  to  this  Synod. 
It  may,  perhaps,  be  proper  for  me  to  state,  in  this  connexion,  that,  al- 
though I  was,  all  along,  clearly  convinced' that  he  hail  no  right  to  the 
privilege  here  claimed,  yet,  since  the  last  meeting  of  the  Presbytery, — 
inasmuch  as  the  process  against  him  was  still  pending,  and  inasmuch  as 
he  still  professed  to  be  accessible  and  open  to  conviction,  I  prevailed 
upon  myself,  once  and  again,  voluntarily  to  extend  to  him  this  claimed 
privilege;  and  although  1  must  do  him  the  justice  to  say,  that  he  receiv 
ed  me  courteously,  and  seemed  to  take  in  good  part,  the  frankness  with 
which  I  addressed  him,  1  must,  nevertheless,  add,  that,  in  relation  to 
the  offence,  for  which  he  now  stands,  arraigned,  at  the  bar  of  this  Sy- 
nod, I  left  him,  at  the  close  of  each  visit,  just  as  incorrigible  as  the  Pres- 
bytery found  him,  when  he  stood  at  their  bar.  There  is,  Moderator, 
one  position,  taken  by  Mr.  Colton,  on  which  he  lays  considerable  stress; 
and  as  he  has,  by  urging  it  with  much  zeal,  and  vehemence,  and  per- 
tinacity, made  something  of  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  others,  it 
may,  perhaps,  deserve  a  more  extended  notice,  than  any  to  which  I  have 
heretofore  adverted.  The  position  I  here  refer  to  is  this: — that,  by 
our  act,  at  Beth-car  church,  on  the  19th  of  April  last,  we  have  prejudg- 
ed the  cause,  the  trial  of  which,  we  commenced  in  Fayetteville,  on  the 


14 

10th  of  July  last.     You  will  perceive,  Sir,  that  this  position,  is  an  infer- 
ence, which  Mr.  Colton  draws  from  the  character  of  our  act,  at  Beth- 
car  church;  and  the  question  now  is,  is  that  inference  a  just  one?  Does 
it  necessarily    follow,    from   the  fact,  with  which  he  would  connect  it? 
What,  Sir,  was  the  amount  of  our  act,  at  Beth-car  church?  We  review- 
ed and  condemed,  an  anonymous  pamphlet, — the  production    of  an  un- 
knoivn  author,  and  we  told  our  churches,  that,  in  our  opinion,  that  pam- 
phlet, contained  allegations  of  a  false  and  slanderous   nature.     Does  it 
follow  from  this,  Sir,  that  we,  at  the  same  time,  pronounced  the  Rev. 
Simeon    Colton,   guilty   of  falsehood  and  slander  ?     You   might,  with 
equal  justice,  infer,  that  we  had  pronounced    the  Rev.  Thomas  Chal- 
mers, D.  D.  of  Edinburgh,  in  the  Kingdom  of  North  Britain,  guilty  of 
blasphemy.     No,  Sir,  it  does  not,  it  cannot,  necessarily  follow.    True, 
Sir,  after  we  had  condemned  the  pamphlet,  we   adopted  a  minute,  in 
which  we  recognised  the  fact,  that  common  fame  attributed  the  author- 
ship of  it  to  him;  and,  for  a  very  important  reason  which    we  stated  in 
that  minute,    we   declared,  that  we  considered  it   his  duty  to  inform 
us  what  the  fact  was,  as  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  report:  but 
Moderator,  neither  does  it  follow,  even  from  this  fact,  that  we  prejudg- 
ed the  cause  which  is  now  pending  before  the  Synod.     What,  Sir!  Be- 
cause we  recognise  the  existence  of  a  report,  which  is  operating  to  the 
prejudice  of  a  man's  character,  and   ask  that   man  whether  the  report 
be  true  or  false,  does  it  follow,  that,  by  the  act  of  proposing  this  ques- 
tion, we  virtually  pronounce  the  report  to  be  true,  or  even  believe  it  to 
be  true?     No,  Sir:  The  inference  would  not  be  just,  even  if  this  ques- 
tion had  been  proposed,  in  the  prosecution  of  a  process,  instituted  against 
him.     What,  then,  perhaps,  Mr.   Colton  will  ask,  is  the  true  or  just 
inference,  from  the  institution  of  a  process,  founded  upon  common  fame? 
I  answer,  the  true  inference  is,  that  the  accusation  of  common  fame  is, 
in  our  judgment,  doing  much  injury;  and  that,  therefore,  we  have,  from 
a  sense   of  duty,   adopted   the   determination  to  prevent   the   prevail- 
ing report  if  possible,   from  doing  further   mischief  by  ascertaining  its 
truth  or  falsehood,  to  the  end  that,  if  false,  the  falsehood  should  be  ex- 
posed, and  if  true,  that  the  church  might  be  purged  from  the  scandal, 
which  it  had  created.     That   this   reasoning   is  not  fallacious,  appears 
very  evident  from  the  fact,  that  there  have  been  repeated  instances  of 
judicial  processes,  founded  on  rumour,  which  have  resulted  in  the  hon- 
orable acquittal  of  the  parties   implicated,  and  in  their  restoration  to 
the  full  confidence  and  affection  of  their  brethren.     But,  Sir,  aside  from 
this  reasoning,  let  us  inquire,  what,  on  this  subject,  is  the  present  set- 
tled doctrine  of  our  church?     We  shall  find  it,  Sir,  embraced,  in  a  Re- 
solution of  the  General  Assembly  of  1835,  in  the  following  explicit,  ab- 
solute, and  unequivocal  terms. 

"Resolved,  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  General  Assembly,  it  is  the 
right,  and  may  be  the  duty,  of  any  judicatory  of  our  church,  to  take  up, 
and  if  they  see  cause,  to  bear  testimony  against  any  printed  publication 
which  may  be  circulating  within  its  bounds,  and  which,  in  the  judgment 


15 

of  that  judicatory,  may  be  adopted  to  inculcate  injurious  opinions  : 
And  this  whether  the  author  be  living  or  dead, —  whether  he  be  in  the 
communion  of  the  church  or  not, — whether  he  may  be  a  member  of  the 
judicatory  expressing  the  opinion,  or  of  some  other.  A  judicatory  may 
be  solemnly  called  upon  to  warn  the  churches  under  its  care,  and  espe- 
cially the  rising  generation,  against  an  erroneous  book,  while  the  author 
may  not  be  within  their  bounds,  or  immediately  responsible,  at  their 
bar;  and  while,  even  if  he  were  thus  responsible,  and  within  their  reach, 
they  might  not  think  it  necessary  to  arraign  him  as  a  heretic.  To  deny 
our  judicatories,  as  guardians  of  the  churches,  this  right,  would  be  to 
deny  them  one  of  the  most  precious  and  powerful  means  of  bearing  tes- 
timony against  dangerous  sentiments,  and  guarding  the  children  of  the 
church  against  Hhat  instruction  which  causeth  to  err.''  The  writer  of 
such  a  book,  may  reside  at  a  distance  from  the  neighborhood  in  which 
his  work  is  circulating  and  supposed  to  be  doing  mischief,  or  he  may  be 
so  situated  that,  even  if  it  be  proper  to  commence  process  against  him, 
it  may  not  be  possible  to  commence,  or,  at  any  rate,  to  issue  that  pro- 
cess within  a  number  of  months.  In  the  mean  while,  if  the  right  in 
question  be  denied,  this  book  may  be  scattering  poison,  without  the 
possibility  of  sending  forth  an  effectual  antidote.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
indispensably  necessary,  in  cases  which  may  easily  be  imagined,  to  send 
out  such  a  warning,  even  though  the  author  of  the  book  were  fully  ac- 
quitted from  the  charge  of  heresy." 

These  sentiments  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1835,  it  is  proper  here 
to  remark  were  formally  adopted,  by  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville,  as 
their  own  sentiments,  at  their  meeting,  at  Ashpole  church,  in  the 
Spring  of  1836.  By  these  sentiments,  then,  they  were  thus,  if  I  may 
so  speak,  under  a  double  obligation  to  be  governed,  in  their  own  pro- 
ceedings; and  it  is  easy  to  see,  how  strictly  conformable  to  these  views, 
was  the  course  which  the  Presbytery  pursued,  in  the  case,  of  which 
Mr.  Colton,  has,  in  his  defence,  once  and  again,  so  heavily  complain- 
ed. And  here,  Sir,  I  cannot  help  adverting  to  a  memorable  fact,  con- 
nected with  the  Presbyterial  adoption  of  the  Assembly's  resolution,just 
quoted,  which,  in  my  opinion,  deserves  Mr.  Colton's  serious  considera- 
tion. Before  I  state  the  fact,  however,  I  would  premise,  that,  in  his 
defence,  and  elsewhere,  he  seems  to  discover  no  small  ambition,  and 
anxiety  to  be  considered  as  a  man  ot  kindred  spirit  with  our  late  belov- 
ed Brother  Douglass,  the  praise  of  whose  eminent  piety,  including 
meekness,  modesty,  humility,  and  other  distinguishing  christian  graces 
is,  deservedly,  in  all  the  churches.  With  what  justice  he  sets  up  a 
claim  to  be  so  considered,  is  a  question  of  too  great  delicacy,  for  me,  at 
this  moment,  to  decide;  and  therefore, I  will  not  undertake  it;  yet  what 
I  am  about  to  state,  may,  probably  afford  some  illustration  of  the  point. 
The  fact,  to  which  I  advert,  is  this.  At  the  meeting  of  our  Presbytery, 
at  Ash-pole  church,  in  the  Spring  of  1836,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  examine  the  printed  minutes  of  the  Assembly  ot  that  year,  and  make 
report  of  whatever  might  appear,  properly  to  claim  the  attention  of  the 


16 

Presbytery.  It  fell  to  my  lot  to  be  the  chairman  of  that  committee; 
and  it  became,  of  course,  my  privilege  to  draw  up  the  report.  The  As- 
sembly had  settled  several  important  and  interesting  questions,  in  op- 
position to  those  loose  notions  of  Ecclesiastical  policy,  which  had,  for 
some  previous  years,  by  some  restless  spirits,  been  urged,  with  perti- 
nacious zeal  upon  the  churches.  Among  the  principles,  which  the  As- 
sembly had  thus  established,  were  these  embodied  in  the  resolution  I 
liave  now  quoted.  While  drawing  up  the  report  I  was  required  to  ex- 
hibit, I  had  little  or  no  hope  of  its  adoption;  for  I  felt  constrained,  by  a 
sense  of  duty,  to  recommend  to  Presbytery,  the  adoption  of  the  princi- 
ples established  by  the  Assembly,  inasmuch  as  I  considered  them  sound 
principles,  and  such  as  I  believed  to  be  required,  by  a  regard  to  the 
safety  of  the  church.  A  majority  of  the  Presbytery  had,  at  the  previ- 
ous meeting,  erroneously,  in  my  judgment,  rejected  the  "Act  and  Tes- 
timony;"— a  proceeding  to  which,  Mr.  Colton  now  refers,  with  exulta- 
tion, (see  his  defence  P.  46)  as  one  in  which  he,  and  the  beloved  and 
lamented  brother  spoken  of,  had  acted  unitedly;  and  with  the  recol- 
lection of  this  fact, I  had  no  very  sanguine  expectation  of  persuading  the 
Presbytery  to  adopt  my  views  of  the  subjects,  calling  for  their  consid- 
eration. I  prepared  the  report,  however,  according  to  my  own  consci- 
entious views  of  propriety  and  duty;  and  submitted  it  to  the  Presbytery. 
After  the  report  was  read,  and  the  Moderator  had  inquired,  how  it 
should  be  disposed  of,  or  what  should  be  done  with  it,  there  was  perfect 
silence  in  Presbytery,  for,  I  believe,  something  like  two  minutes.  At 
length,  however,  very  contrary  to  my  expectation  at  the  time,  Brother 
Douglass  arose,  and,  in  that  deliberate,  impressive  manner,  which  was 
so  characteristic  of  him,  he  said,  "Moderator,  I  move  you,  that  the  re- 
port which  has  been  submitted,  be  adopted,  without  alteration.  I  make 
this  motion,  Sir, — not  because  the  principles  therein  proposed  to  be 
established,  are  such  as  I,  if  I  consulted  my  inclination  alone,  would 
desire  to  adopt; — but,  because  I  have  a  good  reason  to  believe,  that  a 
majority  of  the  Ministers  and  Office  bearers  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
now  desire,  that  we  should,  henceforth,  be  regulated  by  these  princi- 
ples; and  I  cheerfully  acquiesce  in  their  choice,  rather  than  insist  on  my 
own."  The  motion  was  seconded;  and  it  was  carried  unanimously. 
Mr.  Colton  was  present  at  that  meeting;  but  I  am  not  certain  that  he 
was  present  at  this  stage  of  business;  for  if  I  recollect  aright,  he  was  not 
with  us  at  the  commencement  of  the  meeting.  I  have  been  thus  min- 
ute and  particular,  in  detailing  the  circumstances  connected  with  this 
fact,  and  I  have  called  it  a  memorable  fact,  because,  it  has  been  dis- 
tinctly and  strongly  impressed  upon  my  memory,  and  I  doubt  not  but 
that  many  other  brethren,  who  were  present  on  the  occasion  to  which  I 
now  allude,  will  fully  confirm  my  statement.  I  have  said,  Sir,  that 
this  memorable  fact,  does,  in  my  opinion,  deserve  Mr,  Colton's  serious 
consideration;  and  I  suppose,  he  will  now  fully  understand,  why  I  said 
so.  By  this  time,  I  presume  every  unprejudiced  member  of  this  Synod 
will  clearly  perceive,  that,  had  he  been,   what  he  so  anxiously  desires 


17 

the  Southern  community  to  consider  him, — a  man  of  kindred  spirit  with 
the  late  Rev.  James  Waller  Douglass,  he  should  not  have  been,  this 
day,  before  us,  on  trial.  Mr  Colton  labours  hard,  to  fasten  upon  us, 
the  blame  of  this  trial;  but,  Sir,  he  himself,  is  the  only  one,  to  whom 
this  blame  properly  belongs.  lam  sure,  that  nothing  was  ever  done 
with  greater  reluctance,  than  the  institution  of  this  Process; — but  it 
could  not  have  been  avoided,  unless  the  Presbytery  could  have  consent- 
ed to  be  unfaithful  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  by  basely  betraying 
his  interests.  When  we  took  up  the  subject  of  the  anonymous  pam- 
phlet, at  Beth-car  church,  much  as  we  disapproved  of  Mr.  Colton's 
past  waywardness  of  temper,  we  had  no  disposition  to  question  his  vera- 
city; and  therefore,  when  we  adverted  to  the  prevailing  report,  respect- 
ing the  authorship  of  it,  and  gave  him  to  understand,  that  we  thought  it 
to  be  his  duty  to  inform  us  whether  he  was  the  author  or  not, — if  he  had 
then  denied  the  authorship, — notwithstanding  the  report  was  "accom- 
panied with  strong  presumption  of  truth,"  we  would  have  taken  it  for 
granted,  that  common  fame  was  mistaken;  and  we  would  have  published 
to  the  world,  an  authoritative  contradiction  of  the  allegation,  and  ex- 
horted our  people  not  to  believe  it,  unless  accompanied  by  undeniable 
proof.  We  are  glad,  however,  for  his  sake,  that  he  did  not  expose  us 
to  the  temptation  of  doing  this;  as  it  now  appears,  from  his  own  con- 
fession that  the  report  was  well  founded,  and  I  only  mention  the  state 
of  the  case  I  have  now  given,  founded  on  my  knowledge  of  the  princi- 
ples on  which  we  acted,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing,  how  much  mistaken 
he  was,  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  brethren  towards  him.  And  again, 
on  the  other  hand,  if  when  so  fair  an  opportunity  was  given  him,  he  had 
frankly  acknowledged  the  authorship,  and  had  told  us  at  the  same  time, 
that  he  had  propagated  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  pamphlet,  with- 
out  being  duly  aware  of  their  injurious  tendency;  and  that  he  regretted 
the  error,  and  would  not  again  repeat  it,  such  a  becoming  course,  on  his 
part,  would  have  afforded  us  all  necessary  satisfaction;  and  neither  he 
nor  we,  should  have  had  any  further  trouble:  Or,  even  if  he  could  not 
conscientiously  do  this, — if  he  had,  at  that  time,  peaceably  withdrawn, 
he  would,  by  so  doing,  have  saved  himself  and  his  brethren,  a  large 
amount  of  trouble,  vexation,  and  heart-burning.  So  that,  as  far  the  origin 
of  this  process  is  concerned,  he  cannot,  with  the  least  shadow  of  justice, 
blame  any  one  so  much  as  his  own  restless,  unhappy  and  infatuated  self. 
In  Page  22,  after  having  made  various  exceptions  to  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery,  some  of  which  1  have  already  noticed,  he  alleges,  that  the 
constitution  of  the  church,  gives  him  the  privilege  of  staying  our  pro- 
ceedings; and  then,  affecting  an  extraordinary  degree  of  forbearance, 
as  if  he  were  granting  us  a  great  favour  in  allowing  us  to  try  him,  he 
professes  to  waive  his  privilege.  But  what,  Moderator,  if  it  should,  on 
investigation,  be  found,  that  this  Privilege,  is  nothing  more  than  a  mere 
creature  of  his  own  inventive  fancy?  Where,  Sir,  is  this  privilege 
granted  to  him?  He  refers  us  to  Chapter  VII.  S.  3.  S.  S.  4.  Let  us 
look  at  what  our  constitution  there  says:  and  see  if  it  be  any  thing  like 
3 


18 

a  privilege  to  stay  our  proceedings.  "Appeals  may  be,  either  from  a 
part  of  the  proceedings  of  a  judicatory,  or  from  a  definite  sentence.'' 
Is  this,  Sir,  any  thing  like  a  "privilege  to  stay  our  proceedings?'' 
Surely,  no  one  will  venture  to  say  so,  but  Mr.  Colton  himself; — and 
yet  this  is  the  way  in  which  he  seems  to  have  indulged  himself  in  the 
habit  of  taking  for  granted,  that  we  can  neither  read  nor  understand, 
the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Mr.  Colton  affects  to  be  greatly  embarrassed  by  the  necsssity  which, 
he  supposes,  is  laid  on  him,  toplead  his  own  cause  before  the  Presbyte- 
ry. "I  cannot  conceal,''  says  he,  (P.  22)  "that  in  entering  upon  this 
defence,  I  feel  no  little  embarrassment,  arising  from  the  peculiar  situa- 
tion in  which  I  am  placed.  An  accused  man  labours  under  peculiar 
difficulties,  in  attempting  to  defend  himself.  Delicacy  forbids,  that  he 
should  say  many  things  of  himself  which  an  indifferent  person  might  say 
for  him.  Beside  this,  the  very  condition  in  which  he  stands,  renders 
him  an  object  of  suspicion,  and  causes  the  remarks  that  he  offers  to  fall 
with  less  weight  upon  the  ear  of  his  judges,  than  if  they  came  from  one 
employed  in  his  stead.  Compelled,  however,  as  I  am,  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  church,  to  appear  by  myself ,  not  having  the  aid  of  professional 
counsel,  the  court  will,  I  trust,  consider  the  circumstances,  and  receive 
the  remarks  that  are  made,  with  candid  and  unprejudiced  feelings,  al- 
lowing to  the  argument,  the  full  force,  to  which  it  may  be  entitled.1' 

It  is,  Moderator,  enough  to  excite  a  smile,  to  hear  Mr.  Colton  talk 
about  < ' delicacy ;''  for  those  who  are  acquainted  with  him  are  well  per- 
suaded, that  that  is  a  quality  to  which  he  is  an  utter  stranger;  and,  in- 
deed, Sir,  scarcely  a  more  convincing  proof  of  this  fact  need  be  desired, 
than  the  paragraph  I  have  just  now  quoted,  taken  in  connexion  with 
his  own  conduct,  during  his  trial  before  the  Presbytery.  "Compelled, 
as  I  am"  says  he,  "by  the  Constitution  of  the  church,  to  appear  by  my- 
se'f.v  A  person,  ignorant  of  our  constitution,  might  be  ledjjto  infer  from 
this,  that  he  was,  by  that  instrument,  cut  off  from  any  opportunity  or 
privilege,  of  being  heard,  by  any  voice  but  his  own.  Let  us  iquire  into 
the  justice  of  this  representation.  Our  Book  of  Discipline,  Chapter 
IV.  S.  XXI,  contains  the  following  provision.  "If  any  accused  per- 
son feel  unable  to  represent  and  plead  his  own  cause  to  advantage,  he 
may  request  any  Minister  or  Elder,  belonging  to  the  judicatory  before 
which  he  appears,  to  prepare  and  exhibit  his  cause,  as  he  may  judge 
proper.  Butthe  Minister,  or  Elder  engaged,  shall  not  be  allowed,  af- 
ter pleading  the  cause  of  the  accused,  to  sit  in  judgment,  as  a  member 
ol  the  judicatory. "  If,  Sir,  Mr.  Colton  laboured  under  such  mighty 
embarrassment,  for  want  of  counsel,  or  as  he  would  persuade  us  and 
the  public  that  he  did,  why  did  he  not  avail  himself  of  this  provision  of 
the  constitution?  Will  he  say,  that  there  was  no  Minister  or  Elder  in 
the  Presbytery,  sufficiently  favourable  to  his  cause,  to  undertake  such  a 
service?  No,  Sir,  he  dare  not  say  so.  There  was  the  Rev.  Evander 
McNair,  and  there  was  the  Rev.  William  Brobston,  both  men  of  pop- 
ular talents,  and  both  known  to  be  favourable  to  his  cause,  and  there 


19 

was,  among  the  Eldership,  Mr.  Henry  Elliott,  who,  in  one  of  the  pulr 
lie  prints,  and  his  own  favourite  public  print  too,  has  recently  been  re" 
presented  as  a  "Host  in  himself."  If  he  had  applied  to  either  of 
these,  I  douot  not,  but  he  could  have  been  readily  supplied,  with  a  wil- 
ling, and  an  eloquent  advocate.  As  he  had  been,  however,  suddenly, 
it  is  to  be  presumed,  seized  by  an  irresistible  paroxysm  of  "delicacy," 
I  suppose  he  could  not  think  of  requesting  either  of  those  gentlemen  to 
give  up  the  privilege  of  voting, — but,  surely,  it  would  be  paying  any 
one  of  them  but  a  poor  compliment,  to  suppose,  that  his  speech  would 
not  outweigh  more  than  one  vote.  The  constitution  does,  indeed,  de- 
clare, that  "  No  professional  counsel  shall  be  permitted  to  appear  and 
plead,  in  cases  of  process,  in  any  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts,"  and  this 
part  of  the  Constitution  is  to  him  so  offensive,  that  he  cannot  refrain  from 
betraying  his  dissatisfaction  with  this  prohibitary  part  of  it;  first,  by 
misrepresenting  it; — then  by  doing  all  he  could  to  evade  its  spirit;  and 
moreover,  when  he  found  that  he  could  not  succeed  in  his  efforts  to 
evade  its  letter  as  well  as  its  spirit,  he  must  needs  complain  heavily  of 
the  Presbytery  because  they  did  not  co-operate  with  him,  in  this  un- 
worthy effort.  He  misrepresents  the  constitution,  by  alleging  that  it 
"compelled  him  to  appear  by  himself,"  in  the  very  face  of  a  plain  provi- 
sion of  a  contrary  character;  and  he  did  all  he  could  to  evade  its  spirit,, 
by  having  a  lawyer  constantly  at  his  elbow,  whispering,  in  his  ear,  at 
every  convenient  interval,  hints  not  fitted  to  facilitate  the  progress  ot 
fair  investigation,  but  rather  adapted  to  embarrass  the  court;  and  to 
obstruct  the  proper  exercise  of  salutary  abjudication.  And,  as  if  this 
were  not  enough,  Sir,  he  has  recourse  to  an  ingenious  device,  to  evade, 
even  the  letter  of  the  constitution.  Observe,  Moderator,  that  the  con- 
stitution, in  allowing  him  to  have  his  cause  exhibited  by  another,  ex- 
pressly requires,  that  that  other,  be  a  "minister  or  elder,  belonging  la 
the  judicatory,  before  which  he  appears."  And  how  could  he  continue 
to  evade  this  ?  I  will  tell  you,  Sir.  At  the  commencement  of  the 
trial,  his  friend,  Mr.  George  McNeill,  makes  a  motion,  that  the  Rev. 
Rufus  Win.  Bailey,  a  minister  not  belonging  to  the  judicatory,  be  in 
vited  to  sit  with  the  Presbytery,  as  a  corresponding  member.  The 
Presbytery,  perceiving  the  design  of  this,  reject  the  motion;  and  Mr. 
Colton,  finding  himself  thus  foiled,  gives  vent  to  his  resentment,  in  the 
following  language,  which  is  to  be  found  in  Page  50,  of  the  defence. 
"The  unprecedented  occurrences  that  have  taken  place  since  the  trial 
commenced,  are  of  a  character  by  no  means  calculated  to  induce  a  be- 
lief of  the  existence  of  kind  feelings,  and  of  a  disposition  to  afford  a 
fair  and  impartial  trial.  The  refusal  to  admit  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bailey  to 
a  seat  as  a  corresponding  member,  is  unprecedented  in  the  history  of 
Presbyterian  fellowship.  It  is  an  intimation  of  distrust,  that  amounts 
to  an  impeachment  of  his  ministerial  character,  and  manifests  a  want  of 
courtesy  to  the  Presbytety,  of  which  he  is  a  member.  The  refusal, 
also,  to  receive  his  explanatory  letter,  is  a  still  greater  manifestation  of 
the  want  of  courtesy,  and  betrays  a  suspicious  dispositior   .altogether 


20 

beneath  the  dignity  of  christian   ministers,  sitting  in  a  solemn  assem- 
bly."    I  do  not  quote  this  passage.   Moderator,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
plying to  it.     This,  I  should  indeed   think  "beneath  the   dignity  of  a 
Christian  Minister;"  but  I  presume,  Sir,  that  you,  and   this   Reverend 
Synod,  can  be  at  no  loss  to  judge,  whether  this  language  breathes  a  be- 
coming spirit,  or  such  as  the  author's  peculiar  attitude,  and  the  relation 
in  which  he  stood  to  those  of  whom  he  thus  spoke,  ought  to  have  inspired. 
In  the  course  of  his  defence,  Mr.  Colton  has,  once  and  again,  alleged, 
affirmed,  and  re-asserted,  with  as  much  seeming  confidence  as  if  his  as- 
sertions were  accompanied  with  perfect  demonstration,  that  the  Pres- 
bytery have  utterly  tailed,  in  exhibiting  the  requisite  proof  of  the  things 
they  have  laid  to  his  charge.     In  page  25,  he  says,   k'Here,    then,  has 
been  an  entire  failure,  in  the  very   outset   of  the  prosecution;"  and  in 
page  40,  he  says,   "In  a  review  of  the  whole  evidence,  you  cannot  fail, 
I  think,  to  perceive,  that  the  prosecutors  have  entirely  failed,  in  proving 
every  point  necessary  to  sustain   their  charge."     Aloderator,  1  know 
not,  how  others  may  feel  themselves  affected,  or  operated  upon,  by  such 
brow  beating  as  this;  but,  as  for  my  single  self,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  it 
moves  me  not,  even  the  amount  of  a  feather's  weight;  and  I  feel  firmly 
persuaded,  that  this  Reverend  Synod   will  require  something  far  more 
convincing  than  the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  the  Rev.  Simeon  Colton,  before 
they  will  consent,  that  the  abundant  mass  of  evidence  now  before  them, 
shall  be  considered,  treated,  and  pronounced,  as  amounting  to  nothing. 
f    I  proceed,  therefore,  directly  to  inquire,  what  the  Presbytery  have 
laid  to  his  charge;  and  whether  the  matter  contained  in  the  pamphlet, 
of  which  he  has  avowed  the  authorship,  contains  sufficient  evidence,  to 
substantiate  that  charge.     He  is  charged,  Sir,   with  "conduct  highly 
censurable,  and  very   unbecoming  a  minister  of  Christ,  in  giving  cur- 
rency to  allegations  of  a  false  and  slanderous  nature,  against  the  church, 
and  her  duly  constituted    authorities,   having  a  tendency  to  bring  the 
church,  and  her  office  bearers  generally,  into  public  disrepute.''     The 
first  specification,  under  this  charge,  embraces  the  authorship,  charac- 
ter, and  circulation  of  a  pamphlet,  bearing  the  signature  of  "Presbute- 
ros,"  and  the  second  embraces  the  time,  and  territorial   limit9  of  its 
publication.     As  the  authorship,  circulation,  and  publication   of  that 
pamphlet,  have  all  been  acknowledged,  we  need  extend  our  inquiry  no 
further  than  to  the  character  of  that  production,  as  summarily  described 
in  the  general  charge,  referred  to  in  specification   1st,  and  somewhat 
more  systematically  described,  in  the  act  of  the  Presbytery,  adopted  at 
Beth-car  church.     I  will  ask  you,  Sir,  and  my  brethren  of  this  Synod, 
to  take  a  candid  view  of  the  evidence  which  the  Presbytery  has  exhibit- 
ed, in   this  act;  giving  all   due  weight  to  whatever  has  been  urged  by 
Mr.  Colton,  in  the  shape  of  argument  against  it;  and,  if  I  am  not  great- 
ly deceived,  by  the  time  we  get  through  a  fair  investigation  of  the  case, 
this  Synod,  or  at  least  a  large  majority  thereof,  shall  be  fully  satisfied, 
notwithstanding  all    Mr.   Colton  has  said  to    the  contrary, — that  the 
charge  is  substantiated,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.    But,  before  I, 


enter  on  this  investigation,  I  must  spend  a  moment  or  two  in  the  re- 
moval of  a  stumbling  block,  by  which  Mr.  Colton  has  attempted  to  ob- 
struct our  progress,  on  the  very  threshold  of  our  inquiry.  It  is  to  be 
recollected  that  the  charge  is  prefaced  with  the  statement  of  the  fact, 
that  the  Presbytery  had  found  ''considerable  excitement  prevailing,  in 
various  places  within  the  limits  of  the  churches  under  their  care,  and 
especially  within  the  limits  of  the  congregation  of  Fayetteville;  occa- 
sioned, as  was  generally  believed,  by  a  series  of  offensive  acts  of  the 
Rev.  Simeon  Colton;"  and  that,  to  this  statement,  is  annexed,  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Presbytery's  conviction,  that  it  was  their  duty  "to  in- 
vestigate the  cause  of  this  injurious  excitement,  to  purge  the  church 
from  the  scandal  to  which  she  was  exposed."  From  this  preface  to  the 
charge,  Mr.  Colton  infers,  and  zealously  contends,  that  it  is  incumbent 
on  us  to  "prove  the  existence  of  the  excitement''''  here  referred  to;  and 
that,  if  we  fail  to  prove  this,  we  have  no  right  to  institute  a  charge 
against  him,  on  the  ground  of  common  fame.  In  other  words,  he  in- 
sists upon  it,  that  we  were  bound  to  call  witnesses  judicially  before  us, 
to  testify  to  this  excitement;  and  to  record  their  testimony.  Now,  in 
regard  to  this  singular  demand,  my  first  remark  is,  that  Mr.  Colton 
has  here  mistaken  our  province  for  his  own  privilege.  What  was  inten- 
ded by  our  discipline,  as  a  guide  for  us,  to  regulate  our  own  course,  in 
some  specified  cases,  Mr.  Colton  has  taken  for  granted,  was  designed 
for  his  security,  and  the  security  of  others  similarly  situated.  ]Now, 
this  is  an  entire  mistake.  When  we  charge  a  person  with  an  offence, 
on  the  ground  of  general  rumour,  it  is  incumbent  on  us,  indeed,  to  be 
satisfied,  for  ourselves,  that  is,  to  have  a  reasonable  conviction  impress- 
ed upon  our  own  minds,  of  the  existence  of  that  rumour; — but  it  never 
was  designed,  or  contemplated,  that  we  should  be  bound,  first  to  furnish 
convincing  evidence  of  the  fact  to  the  person  who  was  the  subject  of 
the  rumour,  before  we  could  charge  him  with  the  offence:  for,  if  this  were 
so,  no  charge,  on  this  ground,  could  ever  be  brought;  and  the  proviso 
made  in  our  constitution  for  arraigning  persons  on  this  ground,  would 
thus  be  a  mere  nullity.  My  next  remark  is,  that  the  evidence  we  had 
on  this  subject,  was  the  best  evidence  we  could  have  had, — evidence 
even  superior  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  and  such  as  no  testimony 
of  this  kind  could  possibly  overthrow, — I  mean,  the  evidence  of  our 
senses.  And,  my  third  and  last  remark,  on  this  unwarrantable  de- 
mand is,  that  the  only  rumour,  with  which,  at  this  time,  we  have  any 
thing  to  do,  is  the  rumour  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  pamphlet;  and 
as  he  himself  has  saved  us  the  trouble  of  examining  witnesses  to  prove 
the  truth  of  this,  by  his  own  explicit  acknowledgment,  his  demand,  of 
course,  falls  to  the  ground. 

The  way,  Moderator,  seems  now  to  be  clear,  for  directly  approach- 
ing the  interesting  inquiry  immediately  before  us.  Has  Mr.  Colton, 
in  his  six  letters  over  the  signature  of  "Presbuteros,''  given  currency 
to  allegations  of  a  false  and  slanderous  nature,  against  the  church,  and 
her  duly  constituted  autorities,  having  a  tendency  to  bring  the  church, 


and  her  office  bearers  generally,  into  public  disrepute?"  This  is  the 
principal  question,  referred,  by  the  Presbytery  of  Fayetteville,  to  this 
Synod,  for  final  abjudication.  In  reply  to  this  question, — the  Presby- 
tery affirm; — Mr.  Colton  denies; — The  Presbytery  specify; — Mr.  Col- 
ton  controverts  their  specifications.  Let  us  now  look  at  both  sides  of 
this  question;  and,  as  Judges  of  a  Court  of  Jesus  Christ,  let  us  endea- 
vour, by  lawful  and  just  means,  to  judge  righteous  judgment. 

The  Presbytery  say, 

1.  That  "the  said  pamphlet  contains  charges  against  those  who  act- 
ed with  the  General  Assemblies  of  183f  and  1838;  which  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  pronounce  false  and  slanderous.  "Of  this  description," 
they  say,  "is  the  following  sentence."  P.  7,  /.  S4  and  35,  of  the 
pamphlet  before  us:  " All  discussion  ivas  forbidden,  by  the  demand  of 
the  previous  question.''''  "This  broad  assertion''  say  the  Presbytery, 
"has  reference  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  declaring 
the  Synods  of  the  Western  Reserve,  of  Utica,  of  Geneva,  and  of  Gen- 
essee,  to  be  no  longer  any  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church;  and  yet,  it 
will  be  seen,  from  the  Assembly's  recorded  and  published  Minutes, 
pages  437,  438,  and  439,  that  every  thing  that  was  done,  in  relation  to 
these  resolutions,  "after  debate,"  and  moreover,  the  delegates  of  this 
Presbytery  to  that  Assembly,  if  called  upon,  will  testify,  that  the  very 
persons  who  most  loudly  complained  of  the  " demand  for  the  previous 
question"  consumed  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  time,  taken  up  in 
such  debate."  In  reply  to  this  plain,  unvarnished  statement,  Mr.  Col- 
ton employs  a  page  and  a  half  of  empty  declamation,  in  which,  among 
other  quibbles  and  sophisms,  he  would  endeavour  to  persuade  us,  that 
because,  forsooth,  the  word  all,  is,  sometimes,  in  scripture,  used  in  a* 
limited  sense,  therefore,  it  must  necessarily  be  understood,  in  a  limited 
sense,  as  he  used  it,  in  the  pamphlet.  But  it  is  needless  to  spend  time 
in  refuting  his  laboured  and  vain  advocacy  of  a  reckless  assertion, 
which  so  many  members  of  this  Synod  are  able  to  refute,  by  the  testi- 
mony of  their  own  senses.  I  consider  it  as  proved,  then,  that  this  as- 
sertion of  Mr  Colton's,  viz:  ''•All  discussion  was  forbidden,  by  the  de- 
mand of  the  previous  question,''''  is  false.  "On  the  same  page,"  say 
the  Presbytery,  "the  majority  of  the  Assembly  are  charged  with  a  de- 
sire to  have  a  majority  in  a  succeeding  Assembly,  as  the  governing  mo- 
tive of  their  acts,  in  relation  to  the  four  Synods.  The  charge  runs  in 
these  words:  '*  Irregularity  in  their  constitution  was  the  alleged  excuse; 
but  the  real  object  evidently  was,  to  secure  a  vote  in  the  Assembly  of  the 
following  year."  "Proof,"  say  the  Presbytery,  "of  the  slanderous 
character  of  this  assertion,  is  derived  from  two  sources.  The  first  of 
these,  in  the  language  of  ihe  resolutions  complained  of;  and  the  other 
may  be  drawn  from  the  professions  of  those  who  took  a  leading  part  in 
the  support  of  these  resolutions;  men,  whose  professions,  to  say  the 
least  of  them,  are  quite  as  worthy  of  public  confidence,  as  are  the  pro- 
fessions of  any  of  those  who  oppose  their  views. ''  How  does  Mr.  Col- 
ton meet  this?     He  says,  P.  30,  "In  reply  to  this   remark  of  the  pam- 


23 

phlet,  the  report  refers,  for  refutation,  to  the  resolutions  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  this  subject.  Now,  in  these  resolutions,  no  reference  is 
made  to  the  motive  prompting  the  act.  They  neither  affirm  nor  deny 
what  is  said  in  the  pamphlet.  They  therefore  prove  nothing,  and  con- 
tribute nothing  toward  either  proving,  or  disapproving  the  assertion." 
Moderator,  how  will  this  random  remark,  (for  it  is  the  safest  name  I 
can  give  it.)  agree  with  the  Assembly's  2d  resolution?  In  that,  they 
say  "That  the  solicitude  of  this  Assembly  on  the  whole,  subject,  and  its 
urgency  for  the  immediate  decision  of  it,  are  greatly  increased  by  rea- 
son of  the  gross  disorders  which  are  ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in 
those  Synods,"  &c.  Ts  there  here  "no  reference  made  to  the  motive 
prompting  the  act?"  There  are,  surely,  "none  so  blind,  as  those  who 
will  not  see."  Another  quotation  of  the  same  character,  which  the  Pres- 
bytery make,  is  the  following:  "One  step  more  is  only  wanting,  to  erect 
the  scaffold,  and  bind  the  victim  to  the  stake."  In  Page  32,  he  has  the 
impudence  to  speak  of  this  quotation,  as  "as  a  specimen  of  garbling 
and  false  construction"  which  "shews  that  the  writer  was  more  dis- 
posed to  make  a  selection  for  effect,  than  to  give  a  fair  representation 
of  the  views  of  the  author.''  This  unworthy  insinuation,  like  others  of 
a  like  description  which  I  shall  probably  pass  over  unnoticed,  must  re- 
coil on  his  own  head,  for  none  but  the  slave  of  inveterate  prejudice  can 
fail  to  perceive,  that  no  quotation  was  ever  more  fairly  made. 

The  Presbytery  have  referred  to  another  passage,  which  represents 
the  reform  measures,  as  leading  to  Popery,  and  as  muzzling  inquiry; 
and  which  censures  the  desire  to  spread  our  own  peculiarities,  as  hor- 
rible bigotry.  In  referring  to  these  sentiments  contained  in  the  pam- 
phlet, they  were  not  given  as  specific  quotations  of  the  author's  very 
words,  but  as  a  correct  representation  of  his  views;  and  any  impartial 
roan  who  will  carefully  examine  them,  will  find  them  so;  but,  forsooth, 
because,  through  oversight  a  slight  mistake  was  made,  in  the  Presbyte- 
ry's references  to  the  pages  where  these  views  are  to  be  found,  Mr. 
Colton,  in  his  reply,  not  only  repeats  his  unfounded  complaint  about 
''garbling"  but  also  makes  a  great  parade  about  the  unimportant  mis- 
take made  in  referring  to  the  pages,  although  he  is  constrained  to  ack- 
nowledge, that  the  sentiments  referred  to  are  found  in  the  pamphlet, 
though  not  exactly  in  the  Pages  referred  to  by  the  Presbytery.  It  is 
thus,  Sir,  that  ikdrowning  men  catch  at  straws.'1 

Another  passage  was  quoted,  or  referred  to,  by  the  Presbytery,  in 
which  "the  minority  were  made  to  govern  the  majority";  and  this  was 
said  to  be  "an  assumption  of  power  which  places  the  body  proposing 
and  defending  it,  in  the  rank  of  Popes  and  counsels  of  darker  times." 
In, reply  to  this  quotation,  Mr.  Colton  (P.  33)  repeats  his  stale  and  un- 
founded charge  of  "garbling,"  and  furnishes  about  half  a  page  of  mis- 
erable sophistry,  which  I  shall  not  now  stop  to  examine,  but  leave  him 
to  writhe  under  the  lash  of  the  merited  castigation  which  was  given 
him  for  this,  by  Brother  Smith  and  Brother  Alexander  Mclver. 

The  Presbytery  had  said,  that,  in  the  pamphlet,  the  Editor  of  the 


24 

"Watchman  of  the  South,"  was  charged  with  deliberate  hypocrisy.  It 
is  true,  indeed,  Sir,  that  the  very  tvords  'deliberate  hypocrisy,'  in  con- 
nexion with  that  Editor's  name,  are  not  to  be  met  with  in  the  pamphlets 
but,  as  I  shall  presently  shew, — that  which  constitutes  the  charge  of  de- 
liberate hypocrisy,  is  certainly  to  be  found  there,  by  implication  as 
clear  and  conclusive,  as  is  the  position,  that  'a  circle  may  be  described 
from  any  centre,  at  any  distance  from  that  centre'; — or  any  other  of 
the  Postulates  of  Euclid.  Yet,  Mr.  Colton,  in  his  reply,  (P.  33  and  34) 
labours  hard,  by  bestowing  some  forced  compliments  on  Dr.  Plumer, 
to  shew  that  we  had  misrepresented  what  he  had  said,  and  concludes 
that  part  of  his  defence,  with  this  bare-faced  challenge:  'Whoever,' 
says  he,  'examines  the  passage,  to  which  reference  is  made,  and  com- 
pares it  with  the  language  of  the  report,  will  find,  that  it  is  not  only 
'garbled,  but,  that  the  reference  drawn  from  it,  has  no  J oundation  in 
the  pamphlets 

Now,  Moderator,  that  this  challenge  may  be  fairly  met,  let  us  look  at 
the  language  of  his  pamphlet.  Here,  sir,  are  his  own  words,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Watchman.  You  will  find  them  in  Page  8  of  the  pamphlet 
now  before  us.  "In  one  sweeping  denunciation,  all  opposers  are  set 
down  as  Pelagians,  and  though  the  charge  has  been  often  and  publicly 
denied,  and  the  publisher  called  on  for  proof,  yet  he  offers  none;  but 
still  goes  on,  with  shameless  effrontery  to  repeat  his  charge,  evidently  ex- 
pecting, that  the  story  will  gain  such  credit  by  repitilion  among  his  rea- 
.  ders,  as  to  be  regarded  as  undoubted  truth.'"  And  again:  "These 
little  hints  are  to  prepare  the  way,  to  fix  prejudices  on  the  minds  of  the 
people,  and  secure  their  belief  in  the  assured  fact,  till  they  shall  become 
ready  to  sanction  all  measures  against  such  heretics,  under  the  name  of 
purifying  the  church,"  Sir,  let  me  ask,  is  it  not  "shameless  effrontery,5' 
in  the  author  of  this  language,  to  say,  that  "the  reference  drawn  from" 
the  passage,  by  the  Presbytery,  "has  no  foundation  in  the  pamphlet?" 
To  what  else,  Sir,  than  to  "deliberate  hypocrisy,"  could  such  conduct 
as  is  here  portrayed,  be  properly  and  consistently  ascribed?  Suppose 
for  a  minute,  Moderator,  without  inquiring  into  the  knowledge  1  now 
possess  of  your  orthodoxy,  that  I  should  call  you  " Pelagian.^  It. is 
obvious,  that  I  must,  necessarily  do  this,  either  sincerely  or  hypocritical* 
ly.  You  publicly  deny  the  charge.  If  I  bring  the  charge  against  you 
sincerely,  how  would  any  rational  man  expect  me  to  meet  your  public 
denial?  Would  it  not,  naturally  and  justly  be  expected,  that  I  would 
meet  it,  either  by  proving  from  sentiments  that  you  had  either  preached 
or  published,  that  you  were  a  Pelagian;  or,  if  I  could  not  do  this,  by 
stating  my  reasons,  no  matter  whether  cogent  or  feeble  for  believing 
you  to  be  a  Pelagian?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  I  had  brought  the 
charge  against  you  hypocritically,  or  knowing  you  to  be  orthodox,  and 
could  find  it  in  my  heart  to  do  so  deliberately,  what  else  could  be  expec- 
ted from  me,  than,  that  I  should  still  go  on,  with  shameless  effrontery 
to  repeat  my  charge,  ardently  expecting  that  the  story  will  gain  such 
credit  by  repitition  among  my  readers  as  to  be  regarded  as  undoubted 


25 

truth;  and  that  I  should  give  ''these  little  hints  to  prepare  the  way,  to  fix 
prejudices  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  secure  their  belief  in  the  as- 
sumed/act, till  they  shall  become  ready  to  sanction  all  measures  against 
such  heretics,  under  the  name  of  purifying  the  church?"  Sir,  Mr.  Col- 
ton  in  this  instance  presumes  too  much  upon  his  own  management  and 
draws  too  large  a  draft  upon  our  simplicity  and  credulity.  1  might, 
Moderator,in  this  manner,  investigate  all  the  other  exceptions  which  the 
Presbytery  have  made  to  the  pamphlet,  and  shew,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  they  have  clearly  proved  all  that  they 
have  asserted;  but,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary,  at  present,  to  proceed 
to  the  remaining  items,  inasmuch  as,  I  apprehend,  that  what  I  nave  al- 
ready said  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  this  Synod,  that  Mr.  Colton  has 
certainly  given  currency  to  allegations  which  to  say  the  very  least  of 
them,  are  not  true.  But,  inasmuch  as  we  have  affirmed,  of  these  alle- 
gations, not  only,  that  they  are  not  true,  but  also,  that  they  are  "of  a 
slanderous  nature,"  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  inquire,  whether  this  point 
be  not  also  established,  as  firmly  and  conclusively  as  the  other.  And 
in  order  that  Mr.  Colton  may  have  no  cause  to  complain  of  injustice  or 
unfairness,  I  will  premise,  that  I  perfectly  agree  with  him,  when  he 
says,  (P.  25,)  that  "in  all  cases  where  the  Constitution  has  given  no 
determined  rule  to  be  employed  in  a  trial,"  it  is  proper  for  us  "to  be 
governed  by  the  usages  of  civil  courts,  in  similar  cases."  To  accom- 
modate him,  Sir,  I  will  even  go  further,  and  allow  their  full  force,  to 
the  quotations  he  has  given  us,  from  eminent  writers  on  civil  law.  To 
this  end,  I  will  here  repeat  his  quotations;  but  I  shall  also  take  the  li- 
berty of  supplying  his  lack  of  service,  by  adding  a  few  more.  In  Page 
26,  he  cites  the  following  authorities.  "The  great  English  Jurist, 
Blackstone,  defines  slander  to  be  the  maliciously  and  falsely  uttering 
any  slander,  or  false  tale  of  another,  which  may  endanger  him  in  law,  or 
exclude  him  from  society,  or  impair  his  trade.  Words  spoken  in  a  friend- 
ly manner,  as  by  way  of  advice,  admonition,  or  concern,  without  any 
tincture,  or  circumstance  of  ill  will,  are  not  actionable;  for,  in  that  case, 
they  are  not  maliciously  spoken."  Starkie  on  Evidence,  Vol:  II,  Page 
880,  says  "Malice  is  essential  to  the  offence.  This  malice  consists  in 
the  intention  to  effect  the  particular  mischief."  Chief  Justice  Parsons, 
one  of  the  first  Jurists  of  our  country,  says,  ilA  libel  is  a  malicious  pub' 
lication,  tending  to  blacken  the  reputation  of  one,  and  expose  him  to  pub- 
lic hatred,  contempt,  or  ridicule.""  Mass's  Report,  Vol.  IV.  P.  168. 
Selwyn  says,  "Although  that  which  is  written  may  be  injurious  to  the 
character  of  another,  yet,  if  it  be  done  bona  fide,  or  with  a  view  of  in- 
vestigating a  fact  in  which  the  party  making  it  is  interested,  it  is  not  a 
libel."  Wheaton?s  Selwyn,  P.  241.  "These  authorities,"  says  Mr. 
Colton,  "are  sufficient  to  shew,  that  in  order  to  make  out  a  crime  of 
slander,  there  must  be  undoubted  evidence  of  malice,  or  a  wicked  in- 
tention to  do  mischief.  It  is  not  enough,  that  the  declamation  made 
be  a  misrepresentation: — There  must  be  evidence,  that  it  was  made, 
with  a  malicious  or  wicked  design."  In  all  this,  Sir,  I  perfectly  agree 
4 


26 

with  liim;  and  I  will  now  add  a  few  more  authorities,  for  the  purpose  of 
illustrating  and  confirming  a  position,  which,  probably  he  had  no  great 
anxiety  to  establish,  viz.  that  there  may  be  abundant  evidence  of  mal- 
ice, and  such  malice,  too,  as  constitutes  slander,  where  there  is  no  di- 
rect avowal  of  malicious  intent. 

Starkie,  in  addition  to  what  is  quoted  from  him  by  Mr.  Colton,  says 
"And  as  in  all  other  cases,  what  a  man  intends,  must  be  inferrred  from 
what  he  does,  so,  if  nothing  appear,  from  which  the  intention  is  to  be 
collected,  except  the  publication  of  the  libel  itself,  unexplained  by  any 
context  of  circumstances, — if  the  very  terms  of  the  document  itself 
tend  to  scandalize,  degrade,  and  injure  the  individual,  or  to  excite  to 
acts  of  outrage  and  sedition,  the  intention,  on  the  part  of  the  defendant 
to  effect  those  objects  must  necessarily  be  inferred,  without  the  aid  of 
extrinsic  proof.'' 

Selwyn,  who  is  also  quoted  by  our  brother,  says,  in  a  subsequent  part 
of  his  work,  "Express  malice  need  not  be  proved.  If  the  charge  be 
false,  malice  will  be  implied."     Wheaton's  Selwyn,  Vol.  2,  P.  976. 

Again:  "As  there  is  a  difference  between  the  malignity  and  injurious 
consequences  of  slanderous  words  spoken  or  written, — the  one  being 
sudden  and  fleeting,  the  other  permanent,  deliberate,  and  disseminated 
with  greater  ease:  many  words,  which,  if  spoken,  would  not  be  action- 
able, are  actionable,  if  published,  in  the  way  of  libel.  Hence,  the 
word  sivindler,  if  spoken  of  another  (unless  in  relation  to  his  trade  or 
business)  is  not  actionable.  Hence,  also,  the  publication  of  a  letter 
containing  verses,  in  which  the  plaintiff  was  called  an  itchy  old  toad, 
was  deemed  a  libel.  So,  the  publication  of  a  letter,  in  which  the  Plain- 
tiff was  stated  to  be  one  of  the  most  infernal  villains  that  ever  disgraced 
human  nature,  has  been  held  actionable,  without  proof  of  special  dam- 
age." "Malice  is  express,  or  implied.''  "Where  a  publication  is  de- 
famatory, the  law  infers  malice,  unless  any  thing  can  be  drawn  from  the 
circumstances  attending  the  publication,  to  relent  that  inference.'' — 
McNally,  on  Evidence,  P.  650. 

Again:  "In  an  action  for  oral  slander  or  libel,  the  proof  of  malice, 
either  results  from  the  slander  itself,  or  is  matter  of  extrinsic  evidence. 
When  the  slander  or  libel  stands  unexplained  by  any  collatoral  evi- 
dence, which  indicates  the  intention  of  the  party;  and  no  light  is  deri- 
ved from  the  occasion  and  circumstances  attending  the  publication,  by 
which  the  mind  of  the  author  can  be  read,  the  court  and  jury  necessa- 
rily derive  their  inference  from  the  words  themselves,  reading  and  un- 
derstanding them,  according  to  their  plain  import  and  meaning  in  their 
usual,  ordinary  sense.  If  the  natural  tendency  and  import  of  the  ex- 
pressions used  be,  to  vilify,  defame,  and  injure,  then,  according  to  ev- 
ery principle  of  reason  and  justice,  the  defendant  must  be  taken  to  have 
acted  maliciously;  that  is,  with  a  view  to  effect  those  consequences,  to 
which  the  means  which  he  has  used,  naturally  and  obviously  tend." — 
Starkie,  Vol.  II,  P.  861. 

"It  is  a  question  for  the  jury,  whether  the  defendant   has  not  made 


17 

false  assertions  in  point  of  fact,  for  injurious  purposes,  or  exceeded  the 
bounds  of  fair  and  legitimate  criticism  for  the  purposes  of  personal  slan- 
der, or  used  the  occasion,  as  a  mere  colour  and  pretext,  for  venting  his 
malice."     See  Starkie  and  Selwyn. 

"It  is  no  answer  to  the  action  to  shew,  that  the  words  were  spoken 
carelessly,  wantonly,  or  in  jest.  It  has  been  well  observed,  that  the 
mischief  to  the  reputation  of  the  party  grieved,  is  in  no  wise  lessened 
by  the  merriment  of  him  who  makes  so  slight  of  it.  A  wanton  disre- 
gard of  the  feelings  and  interests  of  others,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
malice,  in  every  sense  of  the  word:  and  a  man  does  not  the  less  intend 
to  injure  another,  and  therefore  his  act  is  not  the  less  malicious, because 
his  primary  object  is,  to  derive  some  private  gratification  or  emolument 
to  himself."     1.  Hawk.  P.  C.  C.  73,  34. 

"A  libel,  is  a  malicious  publication,  expressed  in  printing  or  writing, 
tending  to  injure  the  reputation  ot  another,  and  thereby  exposing  such 
person  to  public  hatred,  contempt,  or  ridicule.  So  a  publication  which 
renders  a  man  ridiculous,  tending  either  to  blacken  the  memory  of  one 
dead,  or  the  reputaion  of  one  who  is  alive."  Jacob's  Law  Dictionary. 
Art.  Libel. 

"A  libel  is  the  greatest  degree  of  scandal;  and  does  not  die  like 
words  which  may  be  forgotton;  but  is  more  heinous,  as  its  circulation 
of  the  slander  is  more  extensive,  and  derives,  too,  an  additional  degree 
of  malignity,  from  its  being  done  premeditatedly."  Espinasse,  Vol.  2, 
P.  240. 

"A  writing,  though  with  feigned  names,  may  be  a  libel.  So,  if  done, 
in  a  taunting  or  ironical  manner."     Espinasse,  Vol.  2,  P.  244. 

"Whatever  renders  a  man  ridiculous,  or  lowers  him  in  the  esteem 
or  opinion  of  the  world,  amounts  to  a  libel;  though  the  same  expres- 
sions, if  spoken,  would  not  have  been  defamation,  as  to  call  a  person, 
in  writing,  an  itchy  old  toad.''     Wilson's  Report,  Vol.  2,  P.  403. 

"It  is  actionable  to  charge  a  man,  in  a  public  capacity,  or  office,  with 
prineiples  inconsistent  with  his  office;  as  to  say  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  that  he  was  a  Jacobite,  or  for  bringing  in  the  Pretender.''  Es- 
pinasse Vol.  2.  P.  227. 

f_A    COLLOqUIM    OF    THE    MEMBEKS    OF    ASSEMBLY.] 

"Libel  is  a  contumely  or  reproach,  published,  to  the  defamation  of 
the  government,  of  a  magistrate,  or  of  a  private  person."  Com.  Dig. 
til.  Libel  A. 

"On  indictment  for  seditious  Libels,  the  word/b/se,  in  the  only  sense, 
in  which  it  seems  necessarily  applicable,  is  included  in  the  word  ntali- 
ciousP     McNally,  Page  650. 

"Every  freeman  has  an  undoubted  right  to  lay  what  sentiments  he 
pleases  before  the  public.  To  forbid  this,  is  to  destroy  the  freedom 
of  the  press; — but,  if  he  publishes  what  is  improper,  mischievous  or  il- 
legal, he  must  take  the  consequence  of  his  own  temerity.  To  punish 
any  dangerous  or  offensive  writings,  which  shall,  on  a  fair  impartial 
trial,  be  adjudged  of  a  pernicious  tendency,  is  necessary  for  the  preser- 


28 

vation  of  peace  and  good  order,  of  government  and  religion, — the  only 
solid  foundations  of  civil  liberty.  The  will  of  the  individual  is  still  left 
free; — the  abuse  only  of  that  free  will,  is  the  object  of  legal  punish- 
ment. To  censure  the  licentious,  is  to  vindicate  the  liberty  of  the  press* 
Law  Dictionary,  tit.  Libel  IV.,  Blackstone's  com.  P.   152-3. 

"If  every  dreamer  of  innovations  may  propogate  his  projects,  there 
can  be  no  settlement; — if  every  murmurer  at  government,  may  diffuse 
discontent,  there  can  be  no  peace;  and  if  every  sceptic  in  Theology  may 
teach  his  follies,  there  can  be  no  religion.  The  remedy  against  these 
evils,  is  to  punish  the  authors;  for  it  is  yet  allowed,  that  every  society 
may  punish  the  publication  of  opinions  which  that  society  shall  think 
pernicious."     Johnson,  in  vita  Milton. 

I  have,  Moderator,  been  thus  copious,  in  my  extracts  from  authors  of 
the  legal  profession,  because  Mr.  Col  ton,  in  his  defence,  and  particular- 
ly, in  his  concluding  epeech,  in  Presbytery,  appears  to  have  discover- 
ed an  unconquerable  fondness  for,  what  he  calls  'the  common  law.' 
Here,  Sir,  I  trust,  I  have  given  him  common  law,  to  his  heart's  con- 
tent: And,  if  we  try  his  letters,  by  the  principles  here  laid  down,  I 
rather  apprehend,  that  his  exulting  reliance  on  this  city  of  refuge,  will 
end,  in  sad  and  mortifying  disappointment.  Let  us  throw  a  few  hand- 
fuls  of  his  highly  valued  metal  into  this  crucible;  and  see,  whether  it 
will  come  out,  as  worthless  trash,  or  as  'gold  tried  in  the  fire.'' 

1.  In  Letter  III,  P.  6,  of  the  pamphlet  before  us,  the  author,  in  his 
efforts  to  rouse  the  indignation  of  his  readers,  against  the  leading  mea- 
sures of  the  Assemblies  of  1857  and  1838,  and  against  those  who  ap- 
pear in  their  defence,  urges  among  other  objections  to  those  measures, 
'the precipitancy,  with  which  they  were  urged  and  carried;'  and  calls 
it,  'such  a  precipitation  as  shews,  that  the  actors  looked  only  at  the  end, 
without  stopping  to  consider  the  means  for  producing  it.'  What  is  this, 
Sir,  but  a  plain  intimation,  that  the  authors  and  advocates  of  those  mea- 
sures, were  acting  on  the  wickid  and  detestable  maxim,  that  'the  end 
sanctified  the  means',''  and  that  it  was  to  them,  a  matter  of  no  conse- 
quence what  means  they  used  in  accomplishing  their  object,  or  whether 
the  means  used,  were  lawful,  or  unlawful,  provided  their  desired  end 
could  be  secured?  And  who,  Moderator,  that  knows  the  character  of 
the  leaders  of  those  Assemblies,  but  must  pronounce  this  intimation 
the  grossest  slander?  Do  not  'the  very  terms'  used  here,  Sir,  to  adopt 
the  language  of  Starlde,  'tend  to  scandalize,  degrade,  and  injure  the 
individuals  referred  to; — 'to  villi fy  and  defame'  them?  Then,  mark 
the  emphatical  inference,  Moderator,  for  it  is  the  language  of  the  same 
eminent  Jurist.  'Then,  according  to  every  principle  of  reason  and  jus- 
tice, the  defendant  must  be  taken  to  have  acted  maliciously;  that  is, 
with  a  view  to  effect  those  consequences,  to  which  the  means  which 
he  has  used,  naturally  and  obviously  tend.'  And,  indeed,  Sir,  Mr. 
Colton,  elsewhere,  more  than  intimates, — he  rather  charges,  in  no  ob- 
scure terms,  the  detestable  principle  here  referred  to,  on  the  Assembly 
of  U37.     Towards  the  close  of  the  4th  Paragraph  of  Letter  V,  P.  15, 


29 

he  says,  "If  it  be  said  that  the  exigency  of  the  case  justified  such  a 
course,  what  is  this  but  saying  that  the  end  justifies  the  means!  And 
if  that  be  a  doctrine,  on  which  men  are  to  act,  where  is  the  security  of 
society?  What  becomes  of  government,  and  who  can  stand  as  guaran- 
ty for  the  rights  of  individuals?'  Who  will  venture  to  say,  Sir,  that 
there  is  no  slander  here?  No  one,  Moderator,  will  venture  to  say  so, 
that  has  any  knowledge  of  the  real  character  of  the  good  men  whom 
Mr.  Colton  had  the  hardihood,  thus  wantonly  to  assail.  2.  Again, 
Sir,  in  Letter  III,  P.  7,  we  find  this  bold  assertion,  having  special  re- 
ference to  the  doings  of  the  Assembly  of  1837.  "Particular  senti- 
ments were  denounced,  as  heretical,  which  were  never  found  to  be  held 
by  those,  on  whom  they  were  charged.^  Is  there  a  single  word  of  truth, 
in  this  reckless  sentence?  No,  Sir; — Not  one  word.  Then,  Sir,  is  it 
a  slanderous,  as  well  as  false  assertion;  for  according  to  McNally,  "on 
an  indictment  for  seditious  libels,  the  word  false,  in  the  only  sense,  in 
which  it  seems  necessarily  applicable,  is  included  in  the  word  mali- 
cious? and  according  to  Selwyn,  'Express  malice  need  not  be  proved. 
If  the  charge  be  false,  malice  will  be  implied.' 

3.  Once  more,  Sir:  Towards  the  conclusion  of  Letter  V,  on  Page  15, 
we  find  this  sentence,  having  reference  to  the  measures  of  the  Assem- 
blies of  1837  and  1838.  "Confirm  the  measures  of  the  two  Assem- 
blies named,  and  you  introduce  a  principle,  which,  sooner  or  later, 
may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  you  with  tremendous  force,  and  which,  in 
all  probability,  will  become  to  you,  the  means  of  ruin.''  What  could 
be  the  object  of  the  author,  Sir,  in  penning  this  sentence,  and  sending 
it  to  the  press?  Can  any  man,  in  his  senses,  fail  to  perceive,  that  he 
could  have  aimed  at  nothing  else,  than,  in  the  language  of  Starkie,  "to 
excite  to  acts  of  outrage,  and  sedition"  against  those  Assemblies,  and 
their  advocates?  It  follows,  then,  most  unequivocally,  that  this  is 
slander  of  an  aggravated  character. 

Moderator,  if  there  be  any  difficulty  in  exibiting  before  this  Reve- 
rend Synod,  in  a  perspicuous  and  striking  light,  the  "allegations  of  a 
false  and  slanderous  nature,'  to  which  Mr.  Colton  has  'given  curren- 
cy,' I  am  well  assured,  when  I  glance  over  the  letters  of  'Presbuteros,' 
that  this  difficulty  arises  not,  either  from  scantiness  or  inaptitude  of 
materials,  but  only  from  such  an  abundance  of  them,  as  puts  selection 
to  a  stand  I  trust,  however,  that  the  few  specimens  I  have  here  given, 
taken  in  connexion  with  those  on  which  some  of  my  brethren  have  ani- 
madverted in  Presbytery,  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  this  Synod, 
that  the  charge  exhibited  by  the  Presbytery,  against  the  Rev.  Simeon 
Colton,  and  referred  to  this  Synod,  for  final  adjudication,  has  been  sub- 
stantiated beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 

I  have  said,  Moderator,  that  the  productions  of  Mr.  Colton's  pen 
now  before  us,  when  carefully  analyzed,  would  be  found,  a  singular 
compound,  of  glaring  inconsistencies,  gross  perversions,  fallacious  rea- 
sonings, and  other  kindred  qualities.  Let  me  now,  Sir,  on  a  slight  re- 
view of  the  whole,  afford  this  Synod  an  opportunity  of  just  glancing  at 


30 

a  few  of  these  distinguishing  characteristics.  And  first,  let  us  look  at 
a  specimen  or  two,  of  his  inconsistencies.  In  publishing  his  pamphlet, 
he  had  a  special  object  in  view;  and,  as  he  wished  not  to  be  disappoint- 
ed in  its  accomplishment,  he  announced  that  object  to  his  readers,  in 
language  sufficiently  intelligible.  It  is  manifest,  however,  that,  at  that 
time,  he  was  very  far  from  anticipating  a  judicial  investigation  of  his 
conduct,  in  issuing  his  publication.  But  now,  since  after  the  lapse  of 
several  months,  he  must  meet  this  investigation,  the  best  expedient  his 
ingenuity  can  devise  is,  to  presume  upon  our  forgetfulness  in  relation 
to  his  original  announcement;  and  draw  our  attention  to  something 
else,  which  he  could,  more  easily,  and  with  a  greater  show  of  confi- 
dence defend.  Accordingly,  in  his  defence  P.  26,  speaking  of  his  pam- 
phlet, he  repeatedly  tells  us,  that  'its  professed  object  is  to  enlighten 
the  public  mind.'  Yes,  Sir:  He  has  'enlightened  the  public  mind,' 
with  a  witness;  and  he  is,  doubtless,  sufficiently  familiar  with  History, 
to  recollect,  that  many  have  been  sent  to  the  lower,  for  thus  enlighten- 
ing: But,  Moderator,  was  this  in  reality,  his  professed  object?  When 
he  sat  down  to  write  his  six  letters,  was  it  his  sole  design,  fairly,  calm- 
ly, and  dispassionately,  to  investigate  the  leading  measures  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assemblies  of  1837  and  1838,  and,  in  a  clear,  lucid,  and  convin- 
cing manner,  to  shew,  that  these  measures  were  in  conflict  with  our 
adopted  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  and  with  the  genius  of  true  Pres- 
byterianism?  Was  this  his  real — was  it  even  his  professed  object?  No 
such  thing,  Sir.  At  the  very  outset  of  his  undertaking,  he  announced 
to  his  readers,  a  very  different  object.  Turn  to  the  5th  paragraph  of 
his  first  letter,  and  you  will  find  his  object,  thus  explicitly  set  forth: 
'It  is  not  my  purpose,'  says  he,  'to  undertake  a  discussion  respecting 
the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  and  '8.  'I  his 
discussion  has  already  become  so  protracted,  that  it  has  become  tire- 
some. My  design  is,  to  notice  some  things  in  these  acts,  and  connec- 
ted with  them,  which  seem  to  strike  at  the  very  foundation  of  those 
privileges,  which,  as  citizens  of  a  free  country,  we  have  deemed  inval- 
uable.'  In  other  words,  Sir,  his  object  was,  to  influence  the  public 
mind: — his  design,  evidently  was, — to  hold  up  the  proceedings  of  the 
Assembly,  in  such  a  light,  as  to  excite  a  general  alarm,  and  rouse  pop- 
ular indignation  against  the  church.  Who  can  compare  what,  on  this 
subject,  he  says  in  his  defence,  with  what  he  announces  in  his  pam- 
phlet, without  perceiving  in  it,  a  glaring  inconsistency?  Of  the 
same  malicious  spirit,  Sir,  which  is  apparent  in  the  announce- 
ment of  his  object,  as  just  noticed,  we  find  a  further  specimen,  in  a 
part  of  the  8th  paragraph  of  Letter  IV,  where  he  thus  expresses  him- 
self: "There  is  a  powerful  engine,  which,  if  brought  into  operation  with 
all  its  force,  will  accomplish  all  that  could  be  done,  by  the  renewal  of 
the  grand  inquisition.  It  is  public  opinion.  To  get  possession  of  this 
is  obviously  the  aim  of  those  who  advocate  the.  reform  measures.'  And, 
again,  towards  the  close  of  that  same  paragraph,  he  adds,  'And  to  warn 
you  against  the  machinations  of  these  professed  friends  of  reform,  is 


31 

one  object  I  have  in  view.  Beware  of  a  Popery,  that  seeks  the  sanc- 
tion of  its  measures,  in  a  biassed  public  opinion.'  It  would  seem,  then, 
Moderator,  that,  should  the  judicatories  of  the  church  enlist  public 
opinion,  in  favor  of  their  own  institutions,  and  against  those  who  would 
innovate  upon  them,  or  depart  from  their  true  spirit, — to  do  so,  would 
be  highly  criminal  in  Mr.  Colton's  eyes: — it  would  be,  to  resort  to  'ma- 
chinations,' against  which,  he  must  needs  hvarn''  the  people;  but,  yet, 
this  'powerful  engine,'  in  his  privileged  hands,  can  be  wielded  against 
the  church,  with  perfect  innocency.  He  warns  the  people,  against  the 
General  Assembly;  for  presuming  to  wield  this  'powerful  engine,'  in 
their  own  favour;  and  yet,  his  sole  object,  in  these  letters,  is  to  turn 
the  current  of  public  opinion  against  the  Assembly,  and  against  all  their 
advocates,  for  attempting  to  possess  themselves  of  an  'engine,'  which, 
if  the  public  would  permit  nim,  he  would  claim  as  exclusively  his  own!.'! 
Here,  Sir,  in  my  judgment,  we  may  readily  recognise, — not  only  gla- 
ring inconsistency,  but  also — malevolence,  self  conceit,  and  impu- 
dence combined.  And  yet,  Sir,  the  very  man,  who  in  his  letters, 
employs  this  insulting  language, — 'To  warn  you,  against  the  machina- 
tions of  these  pro] 'essed  friends  of  reform,  is  the  object  I  have  in  view,' 
I  say,  Sir,  the  very  man  who  employs  this  insulting  language,  in  refer- 
ence to  men,  to  whom  he  owes  both  respect  and  allegiance,  is  the  same 
man  who,  in  his  defence,  Page  44  and  45,  has  the  'shameless  effron- 
tery' to  assail  us  with  this  challenge.  And  is  there  any  thing  in- 
decorous, in  the  language  of  the  pamphlet?  Is  there  anv  thing  ap- 
proaching to  coarseness,  or  vulgarity?  Have  I  used  hard  names,  or 
treated  my  opponents  in  a  contemptuous  manner?'  Surely,  Mod- 
erator, it  is  with  an  ill  grace,  such  a  challenge  as  this  can  be  giv- 
en, by  the  man,  who,  not  only  in  his  pamphlet,  has  used  the  in- 
sulting language  which  I  have  already  quoted,  but  has,  even  in  his  de- 
fence, aggravated  this  offence,  by  impudently  saying  to  his  judges,  as 
he  stood  arraigned  before  them,  (P.  50.)  "To  say  nothing  of  the  right, 
what  must  be  thought  of  the  modesty  of  a  court,  sitting  in  judgment,  in 
a  case,  where  all  must  admit,  they  are  concerned  in  the  result?'  Sir, 
I  do  not  believe,  that,  even  within  the  whole  length  and  breadth  of  this 
land  of  liberty,  there  is  to  be  found,  a  judge  of  a  civil  court,  who 
properly  regards  the  dignity  of  the  bench,  who  would  not  punish,  with 
imprisonment,  if  not  with  stripes,  the  man,  arraigned  before  him,  who 
would  dare  to  address  him,  in  such  language.  Yet,  Sir,  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Fayetteville,  patiently  bore  this,  and  much  more  of  a  similar  cha- 
racter, from  the'Rev.  Simeon  Colton.  Let  him  remember,  Sir,  that 
it  is  a  principle  of  that  common  law  for  which  he  so  fiercely  contends, 
that  'if  he  publishes  what  is  improper,  mischievous,  or  illegal,  he  must 
take  the  consequence  of  his  own  temerity;' — and  that  "tfo  censure  the 
licentious,  is  to  vindicate  the  liberty  of  the  press.'  Another  inconsis- 
tency, which  appears  to  me  to  demand  attention,  is  a  short  sentence, 
found  in  his  defence,  Page  49,  compared  with  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
six  letters.     On  the  page  I  have  just   named,  I  find  this  language,  so 


32 

different  from  what  I  would  naturally  expect  from  the  author  of  the  Let- 
ters of  'Presbuteros.'  4I  love  my  brethren,  and  for  many  reasons,  feel 
strongly  attached  to  them.'  What!  Love  brethren,  whom  he  stigma- 
tises, as  the  promoters  of  'usurpation,'  and  as  the  advocates  of  'an  as- 
sumption of  power,  which  can  find  no  sanction,  among  a  people  where 
freedom  reigns,'  and  whom  he  places  'in  the  rank  of  Popes,  and  coun- 
cils of  darker  times?'  How  can  he  find  it  in  his  heart  to  love  such  breth- 
ren? Yet,  he  assures  us,  he 'loves  his  brethren.'  Moderator,  I  cannot 
forget,  while  making  this  assurance  of  Mr.  Colton's  a  subject  of  re- 
mark, bow  grieviously  my  Brother  Peacock  offended  him,  by  using  some 
expressions,  that  seemed  to  call  in  question  his  sincerity,  in  regard  to 
orthodoxy;  and  therefore,  possibly,  it  might  offend  him,  still  more 
grievously,  were  I  therefore  to  follow  Brother  Peacock's  example,  by 
calling  in  question  the  sincerity  of  this  profession  of  love:  yet,  I  con- 
fess, that,  when  I  find  myself,  in  common  with  my  brethren,  represen- 
ted, in  an  inflammatory  pamphlet,  as  'muzzling  the  spirit  of  free  in- 
quiry,' as  breathing  'the  true  and  genuine  spirit  of  Popery'  as  exempli- 
fying 'Popery  itself  revived,'  and  as  participating  in  'an  effort  that 
would  not  disgrace  the  Pope  himself,'  1  cannot  help  considering  such 
representations,  as  strange,  passing  strange  evidences  of  'love.' 
I  next  notice,  Moderator,  a  single  instance,  out  of  many  to  which  I 
might  refer  you  of  gross  perversion.  The  Presbytery  had  charged  him 
with  saying,  in  his  pamphlet,  that  'moral  suasion'  is  the  only  way  in 
which  a  church  can  be  reformed.  The  evidence  of  his  having  said  so, 
is  tound  in  the  2d  paragraph  of  Letter  III.  There,  he  says,  'There  are 
two  ways,  in  one  of  which,  all  attempts  at  reformation  have  been  per- 
secuted. One  is  through  the  arm  of  power;  the  other  by  moral  suasion, 
or  the  force  of  truth.  The  former  is  the  mode  usually  adopted  in  arbi- 
trary governments.  The  latter  only  is  consistent  with  the  condition  of 
a  free  people.'  In  his  defence  P.  36,  he  maintains,  that  his  position  is 
correct;  and  for  proof,  refers  to  our  form  of  Government,  Capter  I,  S. 
8,  where  it  is  said,  that  'Ecclesiastical  discipline  must  be  purely  mo- 
ral, or  spiritual,  in  its  object,  and  not  attended  with  any  civil  effects;' 
and  that  'it  can  derive  no  force  whatever,  but  from  its  own  justice,  the 
approbation  of  the  public,  and  the  countenance  and  blessing  of  the  head 
of  the  church  universal.'  Now,  this,  I  call,  gross  perversion;  for,  who 
does  not  know,  what  Presbyterian  cannot,  at  once  perceive,  that  the 
'moral  suasion'  for  which  he  contends,  both  in  his  pamphlet  and  in  his 
defence,  is  very  different  from  any  thing  spoken  of  in  our  Constitution; 
— that  it  is  restricted  to  mere  advice  and  instruction,  and  entirely  re- 
jects every  thing  like  discipline,  subjecting  persons  to  exclusion  from 
church  privileges? 

As  to  fallacious  reasonings,  I  may  say,^ir,  without  danger  of  mistake, 
that,  in  his  defence,  these  are  to  be  met  with,  in  rich  abundance.  Out 
of  a  vast  multitude,  Sir,  let  me  select,  but  a  single  instance.  In  Page 
22,  he  says,  'the  Presbytery  have  said,  that  the  pamphlet  contains 
falsehood,  slander,   and  error,  and   now  they  bring  forward  their  own 


assertiug,  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  charge  they  make  against  me.     Or, 
in  other  words,  they  pass  judgment  upon  what  I  wrote,  condemn  it,  as 
false  and  slanderous,   then  make  out  a  charge  of  slander  against  me, 
and  bring  their  own  former  vote  to  prove  the  charge.     The  case,  there- 
fore, is  prejudged.     The   Presbytery   first  vote    that  I  am   guilty,  and 
then  proceed  to  try  me,  and  make  their  vote  the  evidence  on  which  to 
condemn  me.'     Who.  Moderator,  cannot  see  the  fallacy  of  this  reason- 
ing?'    'The  Presbytery  havcsaid,  that  the  pamphlet  contains  falsehood, 
slander,   aud    error."     What   pamphlet.    Moderator?     The    pamphlet 
written  by  Mr.  Colion?     Did  we  say,  before  the  process  was  insfitWedi 
that,  a  pamphlet,  written  by  Mr.  Colon,  contained  these  things?     No, 
Sir,  lie  would  not.  at  that  time,  acknowledge  our  right,  even  to  ask  him, 
whether  he  was  the  author,  or  not;  '-And   now,    they  bring  forward 
their  own  assertions,  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  charge  they  bring  against 
me.'     •When,  Sir,  did  the  Presbytery    briitg  Forward   *  their  own  asser- 
tions, to  prove  the  truth  of  the  charge  they  brought  against  him?     Ne- 
ver, Sir,  at  any  time,  did  they  do  so  preposterous  a  thing  as  this.    Mr. 
Ctdtou  himself  does,  indeed,  very  often  assert;   and  presumes   on  the 
credulity  of  others  to  receive  his  assertions   for  proofs;  but  the  Presby- 
tery, in  every  instance  in  which  tliey  pronounce  judgment  on  any  thing 
which  tliey  have  thought  proper  to  assert,    invariably  accompany  their 
assertions  with  the  requisite  proofs.     'They   pass  judgment  upon  what 
I  wrote,  condemn  it,  as  false  and  slanderous,    then  make  out  a  charge 
of  slander  against  me,    and   bring  their  men  former   vo'e  1n  prove  the 
charge.     The  case,  therefore,  is  prejudged."     We  did,  indeed.   Mod- 
erator,, pass  judgment  upon  what  somebody  wrote,  and  condemned  it  as 
false  and  slanderous:  but,  we  passed,  at  that   time,  no    judgment  upon 
the  writer',  for  we  did    not,   then,  certainly  know,   who  he  was.     Nor 
was  it  necessary,  in   order  to  ascertain   whether  the  publication  was 
false  and  slanderous,  or  not,  that  we  should  know,  who  the  author  was. 
The  judgment  we  then  pronounced,  was  altogether  independent  of  the 
au  horship.     But.  it  seems,  that  because  he  has,  since,   acknowledged 
the  authorship,  therefore,  we  pronounced  him  guilty,  when  we  condemn- 
ed the  publication!!     Was  ever  any  proposition  more  absurd?     How 
was  it,  Sir,  that  we  did  this?     Why,   he  says,  we  'bring  our  own  for- 
mer vote,  to  prove  the  charge.'     What  bare   faced  assertion!     At  what 
stage  of  this  painful  process,  did  we  ever  appeal  to  any  former  vote,  to 
prove  any  charge?     No,  Sir,  we  appealed,  in  the  commencement,  of  this 
process,  and  we  appeal  now,  to  the  character  of  the  publication',  and  it 
is,  surely,  not  the  less  false  and  slanderous,  because  he  acknowledged 
that  he  wrote  it,  than  it  would   have  been,  void  of  such    acknowledg- 
ment.    This,  Sir,  is  a  fair  sample  of  his  reasoning;  and  this  Synod  can 
be  at  no  loss  to  judge,    whether  it  be  solid  or  superficial.     But,  let  us 
take  a  momentary  glance  at  a  few  more  samples  of  these  rare  produc- 
tions of  his  pen. 

In  Page  27,  he  says,  'It  is  a  primary  law  of  interpretation,  that  every 
man  is  to  be  allowed  to  be  his  own  interpreter:  That  is,  every  man  is 
to  be  allowed  to  explain  what  he  means,  in  wnat  he  says^  or  writes.' 
5 


If  this  be  true.  Moderator,  then,  we  never  can  safely  ascertain  the 
meaning,  intent,  or  design  of  any  publication,  until  the  author  comes, 
and  tells  us,  what  hemeant  by  it.  Phis  is,  indeed,  a  very  convenient 
law  of  interpretation,  for  one  who  writes  what  has  a  tendency  to  give 
offence;  for,  according  to  this  law,  no  matter  what  he  writes. — if  it  be 
in  any  way  called  in  question,  he  has  nothing  to  do,  but  to  explain 
away  its  offensiveness.  He  may  write,  and  publish,  tor  example,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  excite  a  resistless  torrent  of  popular  indignation 
against  this  Synod;  and,  when  called  to  answer  for  it,  all  he  has  to  say 
is,  'Brethren,  I  did  indeed,  represent  you  to  the  public,  as  tyrannical, 
and  oppressive;  and,  in  reference  to  a  particular  act  of  yours,  I  did  say 
it  was  *an  effort  that  would  not  disgrace  the  Pope  himself;' — but,  all  I 
meant  by  this  was,  merely  to  say,  that  I  love  you,  as  brethren,  and  for 
many  reasons,  I  am  strongly  attached  to  you  "  The  law  of  interpreta- 
tion, Sir,  which  would  admit  of  his  acting  such  a  part  as  this,  may  be 
convenient  enough  for  him;  but  I  apprehend,  that  this  Synod  will  be 
disposed  to  give  the  preference  to  that  old  fashioned  law  of  interpreta- 
tion, which  requires,  that  every  publication  should  be  taken,  in  lite  nat- 
ural and  obvious  sense  of  the  language,  in  which  it  is  conveyed. 

Moderator,  I  will  hurry  over  a  few  other  little  things.  In  Page  P8, 
in  replying  to  Brother  Alex.  Mclve-,  who  had  very  properly  represent- 
ed the  question  before  us,  as  simple,  and  of  easy  solution,  Mr.  Colton 
gasconades,  and  flourishes,  in  this  manner.  'It  is  evident,  how- 
ever,' says  he,  -that  the  Moderator  and  others  who  have  spoken  on 
the  same  side,  do  not  feel  quite  so  well  satisfied  with  this  summary 
course  of  proceedings,  as  they  would  wish  others  to  think  tliev  are. — 
There  are,  evidently,  some  misgivings  in  their  mind;  some  qualms  of 
conscience  about  the  correctness  .if  their  course  Else  why  so  much  pains 
to  defend  what,  they  say,  has  been  proved — why  so  much  pains  to  make 
good,  former  acts,  which,  they  say,  are  not  to  be  called  in  question?'* 
In  return,  Moderator.  I  reply,  Who  need  ask,  why?  Has  not  Mr.  Col- 
ton produced  considerable  excitement?  And  has  he  not,  thus,  created  a 
necessity  for  shewing,  how  unreasonable  it  is,  to  yield  to  his  influmalo~ 
ry  declamation, — to  give  it  no  worse  name? 

Mr.  Colton  has  repeatedly  called  upon  us,  to  shew  any  proof  of  mali- 
cious intent,  in  any  thing  that  he  has  said.  I  have  already,  Sir,  re- 
ferred you  to  sufficient  evidence  of  ihis,  to  be  met  with,  in  several  in- 
stances, in  the  Letters  of  ••Presbuteros."  Suffer  me  now,  Sir,  to  shew 
you  a  conspicuous  instance  of  it,  even  in  his  defence,  where  we  would 
naturally  expect,  that  he  would  be  peculiarly  careful  to  avoid  every 
thing  of  the  kind.  In  Page  37,  he  uses  the  following  inflammatory  lan- 
guage, the  design  of  which,  no  unprejudiced  man  can  mistake.  "Give 
to  the  Church,"  said  he,  "the  right  of  excluding  members  at  pleasure, 
and  what  more  efficient  step  can  be  taken  toward  establishing  unlimited 
authority  over  conscience  and  personal  liberty?  The  design  of  exclu- 
ding men  from  the  church,  is  to  fix  upon  them  a  mark  of  disapproba- 
tion, and  thus  to  present  the  individual  in  an  unfavourable  light  before 
the  public.     The  effect  is  to  fix  public  opinion  against  him.  And  wheu 


55 

public  opinion  is  brought  to  bear  upon  an  individual  with  its  full 
weight*  who  is  sufficient  to  sustain  the  load?  If,  then,  the  meaning  of 
the  expression  in  t lit*  reply  be,  that  the  church  may  use  coercise  means, 
it  is  a  fearful  assumption  of  power,  and  the  people  of  this  couiVry  ought 
lo  be  every  where  apprised,  that  there  is  a  new  principle  to  be  brought  into 
operation,  which  threatens  destkuction  to  their  freedom."  Sir, 
if  this  paragraph  contains  no  evidence  of  malicious  intent,  it  is  difficult 
to  find  such  evidence,  any  where.  And  1  am  constrained  to  conclude, 
that  it  is  rom  a  disposition  nothing  better,  that  he  has  so  often  dwelt 
upon  the  Beth-Car  act,  with  the  view  of  insinuating,  that,  in  the  pre- 
sent process,  his  case  is  necessarily  prejudged.  In  his  last  speech,  P. 
102,  he  thus  raves  on  the  subject.  ••They  write,''  says  he,  "all  sorts 
of  sins  against  an  anonymous  author,  and  now  come  here  and  say,  that 
1  am  the  man  who  was  intended  in  all  they  wrote."  Once  for  all  I  re- 
ply, to  this  stale  slander,  They  did  not  say  so,  Mr.  Col  ton,  until  you 
first  said  so  yourself. 

In  page  51,  he  furnishes  us  with  an  opportunity  of  ascertaining  what 
sort  of  a  Presbyterian  he  is.  He  says,  "I  would  render  the  General 
Assembly  a  mere  advisory  body,  and  transfer  all  the  business  of  an  Ec- 
clesiastical Judicatory  to  the  Synods  of  the  separate  States,  as  better 
able  to  understand  the  wants,  and  manage  the  concerns  of  the  different 
sections,  than  the  present  unwieldy  body,  holding  its  Sessions,  in  a 
distant  part  of  the  country."  He  would,  thus,  Sir,  if  he  had  his  way, 
strip  Presbyterian  ism  of  one  of  her  most  attractive  features;  and,  in  ef- 
fect, convert  the  General  Assembly  into  a  Congregational  Association; 
or,  as  our  venerable  Father,  Dr.  Green,  once  expressed  it — he  would 
congrega/ionatize  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

In  page  99,  he  complains  heavily  of  my  good  brother  Peacock,  for 
suggesting  any  doubt  of  his  sincerity,  in  declaring  what  are  his  doctri- 
nal views,  and  yet,  sir,  if  you  will  look  at  the  5th  paragraph  of  Letter 
IV,  and  at  his  defence  of  that  paragraph,  Pape  37.  you  will,  I  think, 
find,  some  evidence,  that  is  by  no  means  equivocal,  of  strong,  very 
strong  sympathy,  with  doctrinal  error.  I  maintain,  sir,  that,  how  vehe- 
mently soever  a  man  may  preach  the  truth,  and  profess  to  believe  it, 
and  rely  upon  it  for  salvation,  he  cannot  have  a  very  sincere,  or  warm, 
or  anient  love  for  that  truth,  when  he  is  ever  ready  to  defend,  and 
shield  from  merited  discipline,  those  who  assail  and  vilify  it. 

As  to  his  coarse  personal  abuse  of  your  humble  servant,  which  is  found 
in  Paiie  50,  I  pass  it  over,  as  unworthy  of  reply.  I  am,  1  trust,  too 
well  known  to  my  brethren  of  this  Synod,  to  need  a  defence  against 
such  low  scurrility.  I  confess,  however,  that  I  cannot  so  easily  pass 
over  the  unmanly  rudeness  with  which  he  has  assailed  some  of  my 
younger  brethren,  who  are  not  so  well  known  to  this  Synod. 

Bui,  sir,  it  i»  no  new  thing  to  find  Mr.  Colton  treating  his  brethren 
unceremoniously.  In  every  instance,  in  which  his  conduct  is  animad- 
verted on,  with  the  least  severity,  it  is  not  enough  for  him  to  complain, 
but  he  must  needs  misrepresent,  abuse,  and  vilify.  My  brother  McLau- 
rin  had  said,  (P.  62  and  63)   "The  writer  of  the  pamphlet,  near  the 


36 

dose  of  it,  gives  you  to  understand,  that,  with  the  reformers,  and  their 
measures,  he  has  no  fellowship  whatever.''  Here,  Moderator,  you  will 
perceive,  is  a  inert  reference  to  the  pamphlet,  without  any  pretem-e  to 
make  a  quotation  from  it.  "The  writer,"  &c.  gives  you  to  understand. '* 
It  is,  here,  proper  to  inquire,  whether,  in  the  reference,  any  injustice 
has  been  done  to  Mr.  Col  ton.  Let  us  see.  The  passage  to  which  bro- 
ther McLaurin  here  refers,  is  found  in  Page  18  of  the  pamphlet.  Mr. 
Colton's  very  words  are  these:  "With  such  measures,  and  with  such  a 
spirit  as  has  been  exhibited  in  this  miscalled  work  of  reformation,  I  can 
have  no  fellowship."  Now,  Moderator,  let  me  ask,  what  great  injus- 
tice has  here  been  done?  If  Mr.  Colton  can  have  no  fellowship  with 
the  measures  alluded  to,  and  if  he  can  have  no  fellowship  with  the  spirit 
exhibited  in  them,  can  we  understand  from  this,  or  does  this  give  us  to 
understand  any  thing  less,  than  that  he  has  no  fellowship  with  the  Au- 
thors of  such  measures?  Or,  at  least,  I  would  inquire,  Is  it  monstrous 
injustice  to  arrive  at  so  natural  a  conclusion?  Yet,  this  excited  the 
nervous  sensibility  of  Mr.  Colton  to  such  a  degree,  that,  in  page  99,  he 
broke  out  upon  Brother  McLaurin,  in  the  following  very  polite  man- 
ner: "Another  gentleman,  (Rev.  Hugh  McLaurin,)  deserves  a  severe 
rebuke.  He  undertook  to  make  a  quotation  from  the  pamphlet.  The 
words  he  used  were  these: — '•The  writer  of  the  pamphlet,  near  the  close 
of  it,  gives  you  to  understand  that  with  the  reformers,  and  their  measures, 
he  has  no  fellowship.''  He  was  told  that  he  had  not  quoted  correctly, 
and  the  error  was  shown  to  him.  He  acknowledged  it,  but  he  goes  on 
and  continues  the  same  assertions.  To  what  can  I  attribute  tins,  but 
to  a  wilful  determination  to  endeavor  to  mislead  the  public,  and  create 
prejudice  against  me?  Can  a  man  be  honest,  who  does  this?  The  er- 
ror does  not  respect  a  matter  of  opinion.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact.  The 
gentleman  knows  it,  and  in  continuing  his  assertion,  furnishes  but  loo 
much  evidence  of  a  want  of  moral  integrity."  I  think  it  proper,  Mode- 
rator, here  to  inform  the  Syood,  that  this  paragraph,  which,  in  the  pam- 
phlet before  us.  appears  as  a  part  of  Mr.  Colton's  concluding  speech, 
was  not  actually  spoken  in  Presbytery,  but  was  afterwards  written  by 
him,  in  preparing  that  speech  lor  the  press,  and  was  consequently  in- 
tended for  tlne  public  eye.  It  therefore, — to  use  the  language  of  Espi- 
nasses — "derives  an  additional  degree  of  malignity,  from  its  being 
done  premeditatedly."  It  contains,  in  my  judgment,  gross  misrepre- 
sentation, actual  falsehood,  and  vile  abuse:— gross  misrepresentation,  in 
s»j'ing,  that  Frother  McLaurin  "undertook  to  make  a  quotation  from 
the  pamphlet,"  when  his  words  shew  he  undertook  no  such  thing,  and, 
after  all,  gave  the  true  sense  of  the  passage  to  which  he  referred; — ac 
tual  falsehood,  in  ascribing  to  Brother  McLaurin  an  acknowledgment 
which  he  never  made — and  vile  abuse,\x\  wantonly  impeaching  Brother 
McLaurin's  moral  integrity.  1  have  already,  Moderator,  had  occasion, 
more  than  once,  to  advert  to  Mr.  Colton's  unprovoked  attack  upon  my 
Brother  Peacock.  "Whatever  be  his  claims  to  a  knowledge  of  religion, 
he  gives  unequivocal  tvidence,  that  he  knows  tut  huh  about  decency,  or 
good  manners."    Let  it  be  remember  id,  Moderator,  that  the  author  of 


this  language,  is  (he  same  man,  who,  in  Pages  44  and  45.  hn«,  with  a 
confidence  which  would  seem  to  defy  contradiction,  appealed  to  us,  to 
say,  whether,  in  what  he  had  written,  there  was  "-any  thing  indecorous, 
or  any  thing  approaching  to  coarseness  or  vulgarity. — whether  In-  had 
"used  hard  names,  or  treated  his  opponents  in  a  contemptuous  manner; 
and  let  those  who  are  must  Familiar  with  his  writings  ami  speeches, 
jndge  of  his  fitness  for  reading  lectures  to  his  brethren,  on  '"decency'" 
and  "good  manners  ''  And, -Sir,  it  aggravates  the  oHeiisiyeness  of  ihe 
passage  I  here  refer  to,  that  it  was  not,  as  it  purports  to  be.  spoken  in 
Presbytery,  but  written  after  the  adjournment  of  Presbytery,  and 
printed  in  the  pamphlet  now  before  us,  where  no  reply  to  it  could  ap- 
pear. Perhaps  some  may  be  disposed  to  allege,  that,  as  one  of  the 
committee  appointed  to  superintend  the  publication  of  the  pamphlet,  I 
am  myself  to  blame,  for  suffering  this  extraneous  matter  to  appear.  I 
am  happy,  Sir,  in  being  able  to  inform  this  Synod 4  tltat,  on  this  topic,  I 
have  satisfied  our  Presbytery,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  record. 
And  here,  Sir.  it  may  be  worth  while  to  inquire  what  that  Brother  had 
said,  to  call  forth  his  splenetic  ebullition.  In  Page  60,  Brother  Pea- 
cock had  expressed  himself,  thus:  *Mr.  Colton,  on  yesterday,  made  a 
very  zealous  profession  of  love  to  Calvinism,  and  to  Presbyterian  church 
polity.  How,  Sir,  are  we  to  estimate  the  value  of  this  zealous  profes- 
sion? We  may,  possibly,  be  assisted  in  the  estimation,  by  connecting 
it  with  the  remarkable  fact,  that  all  the  New  School  have  been  noto- 
rious for  their  profession  of  orthodoxy.  My  doctrine  is,  that  a  man's 
principles  may  be  best  ascertained,  by  observing  what  his  practice  is; 
1  or  we  may  always  safely  take  it  for  granted,  that  a  man's  practice  will 
be  in  accordance  with  his  faith.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  our  confession 
of  faith,  and  also  of  the  Bible.  '•By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.'' — 
'A  pure  fountain  will  send  forth  pure  wafer. '  kA  go  d  tree  will  bear 
good  fruit.'  This,  Moderator,  is  the  head  and  front  of  Brother  Pea- 
cock's offending.  And,  who,  Sir,  that  has  been  at  all  enabled  to  pro- 
fit by  observation  and  experience,  but  must  acknowledge,  that  his  re- 
marks  are  just  v rid  appropriate?  Nor,  Sir,  has  Mr.  Colton,  in  my 
judgment,  the  least  ground  to  complain  that  these  remarks  were  called 
forth  by  his  profession  of  orthodoxy.  Has  he  not,  in  his  pamphlet,  un- 
blushingly  appeared,  as  the  Apologist  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  of 'other  kiri* 
died  erroihls?  And  need  it  surprise  him,  if  a  recollection  of  this  fact, 
and  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  conduct  of  errorists.  in  all  aires, 
should  lead  to  a  suspicion,  that  liis  profession  of  Orthodoxy,  is 
worth  but  little?  Yet,  iti  Page  90,  he  suffers  his  resentment  to 
transport    him  almost  to    madness. 

Although  the  general  tenor  of  his  defence,  exhibits  abundant  manifesta- 
tion of  a  contumelious  spirit  towards  his  brethren  of  the  Presbytery,  yet  in 
page  23.  with  characteristic  consistency,  he  makes  a  very  affecting  appeal 
to  their  sympathy.  '-My  character,"  says  he,  'my  prospects  in  life,  and  a 
family  dependant  on  my  daily  exertions,  are  at  issue;  and  it  is  for  you  to  de- 
cide, whether  1  shall  go  on  peaceably  in  endeavoring  to  discharge  my  duty 
in  society,  or  whether  I  shall  be  constrained  to  buffet  the  troubled  waters 
till  I  can  find  a  place  of  security,  or  perhaps  during  the  remaining  short  period 


38 

of  my  life."  To  this  pathetic  paragraph,  two  remarks,  each  of  them  very 
brief,  by  way  of  reply,  naturally  occur.  The  first  is.  that  the  sympathy  due 
to  distressed  individuals  and  families,  and  the  justice  due  to  the  suffering 
church  of  Christ,  are  altogether  separate  and  distinct  topics  of  reflection  and 
action;  and  the  other  is,  that,  a  reasonable  foresight  of  the  sad  prospect  to 
which  he  here  refers,  and  which  he  so  pathetically  deprecates,  is  a  consid- 
eration which  ought  to  have  dissuaded  him  from  a  course,  so  likely  to  bring 
about  what  he  has  so  much  dreaded,  rather  than  a  consideration,  which  he 
could,  with  any  propriety,  address  to  us,  as  an  inducement;  basely  to  betray 
the  best  interests  of  the  Redeemei's  Kingdom.  In  page  24.  he  says,  "The 
great  Head  of  the  church  will  not.  leave  his  house  unprotected,  should  the 
measures  you  wish  to  establish,  utterly  fail;  but  you  have  no  assurance, 
that  the  evils  occasioned  by  a  wrong  decision,  can  ever  be  repaired"!  Here, 
he  takes  for  granted,  two  things:  One  is.  that  what  we  deem  essential  to  the 
best  interests  of  Zion,  is  a  matter  of  small  consequence,  in  comparison  with 
the  protection  of  his  individual  reputation:  and  the  other  is,  that  any  deci- 
sion against  him,  must,  of  necessity,  be  a  wrong  decision;  and  consequent- 
ly must  be  fraught  with  incalculable  evils.  Sir,  the  question  is  here  a  per- 
tinent one.  What  could,  possibly,  conduct  him  to  either  of  these  conclu- 
sions, but  the  most  consummate  self  conceit? 

In  page  27,  after  making  several  abortive  efforts  to  support  his  unjust 
and  unfounded  complaint  of  'garbling'  his  pamphlet,  he  says,  'These  posi- 
tions, I  admit,  indicate  a  liberty  taken  with  another,  which,  not  only  shews 
an  unfairness  of  dealing  but  such  a  license,  as  borders  upon  a  defect  in  mor- 
al principle.'1''  Moderator,  I  confess,  I  can  fix  no  softer  terms,  in  which  to 
qualify  this  language,  than  to  call  it  a  flippant  ebullition  of  shameless  impu- 
dence. 

In  page  99,  speaking  of  the  Moderator  of  Presbytery,  he  says,  "He  seems 
evidently  to  labour  under  an  impression,  that  his  coadjutors  have  entirely 
failed  in  their  argument;  and  under  this  impression,  he  deems  it  his  duty  to 
leave  the  chair,  and  step  forth  to  help  them  in  their  weakness."  For  this 
language,  Sir,  I  have  no  milder  title,  than  to  call  it  the  language  of  unbri- 
dled insolence. 

Mr.  Colton  would  have  you  to  believe,  that  he  is  very  unwilling  to  be  con- 
sidered as  connected,  doctrinally  at  least,  with  the  New  School  party.  In 
page  47  of  his  defence,  he  says,  'with  the  New  School  party,  so  far  as  er- 
rors in  doctrine  are  concerned,  I  have  no  fellowship,  or  sympathy  of  feel- 
ing? And  yet,  in  his  last  speech,  p.  103,  he  appears  to  discover  no  small 
ambition  to  be  looked  upon  as  holding  a  conspicuous  rank,  and  making  a 
considerable  figure  among  them.  And,  in  order  that,  in  thus  shining  as  a 
chief  of  the  party,  he  may  be  found  in  honourable  company,  he  ventures, 
with  characteristic  modesty,  to  compare  himself  with  the  Apostle  Paul, 
whom  he  calls  'a  zealous  New  School  Preacher?  and  the  Presbytery  with 
the  persecuting  Jews,  whom  he  speaks  of  under  the  title  of 'the  Did  S<  hool 
party?  What,  Molerator,  will  this  Synod  think  of  the  temper  and  dispo- 
sition which  would  prompt  one  holding  the  commission  of  a  Minister  of 
Christ,  to  make  such  a  profane  misapplication  of  a  portion  of  sacred  histo- 
ry, as  Mr.  Colton  has  here  made,  of  a  passage  contained  in  the  24th  chapter 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  Such  conduct.  Sir,  is,  in  my  judgment,  open 
to  the  severest  reprehension.  Let  me  ask.  Sir,  in  this  connexion  — for  I 
think  the  question  is  certainly  pertinent. —  Why  should  a  man.  who.  like  him 
who  now  stands  at.  our  bar, — openly  and  perseveringly  rebels  against  the 
decisions  of  the  highest  court  of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs,  and  whose 
ingenuity  has  been  taxed,  to  bring  its  authority  into  contempt, — I  say.  Sir, 


S0 

—Why  should  such  a  man,  think  it  modest,  or  appropriate,  to  associate  him- 
self with  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  whose  whole  life  and  writings  exhibit 
a  pre-eminent  example  of  support  of,  and  submission  to  the  powers  that  be, 
both  civil  and  ecclesiastical?  O,  Modesty!  whither  hast  thon  taken  thy  flight? 

It  may,  perhaps,  Moderator,  shed  some  further  light  upon  the  character 
of  this  extraordinary  man's  writings,  to  select  a  few  short  sentences  from 
his  letters,  and  contrast  them  with  some  passages  in  his  defence.  In  Letter 
I,  he  says:  'Yield  to  no  man's  dictation,  but  read  and  decide  for  yourselves.' 
In  Letter  III:  'No  man  has  a  right  to  dictate  to  others,  what  he  shall  be- 
lieve.' 'There  is  so  much  of  the  spirit  of  dictation  accompanying  these 
measures,'  (meaning  the  measures  adopted  by  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and 
183S); — there  is  such  an  appearance  of  coercion,  as  to  render  them  the  just 
subject  of  jealousy  to  all  who  regard  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  the  value 
of  their  privileges,  as  citizens  of  a  free  country.'  'Terms,  it  is  true,  were 
dictated  to  them,  but  with  these,  they  must  comply,  without,  asking  a  reason, 
or  remain  for  ever  in  a  separate  state.'  'All  these  things  have  gone  forth 
in  a  spirit  of  dictation,  resembling  more  the  decrees  of  the  Star-chamber, 
than  the  doings  of  an  Assembly,  collected  peaceably  to  consult  on  measures 
for  building  up  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.'  In  Letter  IV.  'Yes,  among  the 
wonders  of  the  19th  century,  and  in  a  country  boasting  of  its  freedom, 
there  have  been  measures. adopted,  of  so  clear  and  decided  a  character,  as  to 
leave  no  doubt  that  there  are  those  in  the  church,  and  that  professedly  a 
Protestant  church  too,  who  are  willing  to  undertake  to  dictate  to  men,  not 
only  what  they  may  think  and  speak,  but  ready  to  proscribe  those  who  dare 
to  act,  and  think,  and  speak  in  opposition  to  their  writings  and  feelings;'  and 
in  Letter  VI.  'In  carrying  out  Che  plan,  a  spirit  of  proscription  and  dictation, 
nearly  resembling  that  of  Popery  has  been  exhibited:'  'The  Assembly  claims 
the  rijrht,  not  only  of  advising,  but  of  dictating  to  the  inferior  judicatories, 
what  they  shall  do'  and  has  'undertaken  to  control  and  prescribe  terms  and 
rules  which  are  at  variance,  with  all  the  principles  of  a  free  government.' 
To  read  these  extracts,  Sir.  one  would  naturally  suppose,  that  there  was 
hardly  any  thing  conceivable,  more  offensive  to  their  author,  than  a  spirit  of 
dictation,  and  that  no  consideration  whatever  could  ever  induce  him  to  devi- 
ate a  hair's  breadth  from  the  strictest  modesty.  Py  looking  at  his  defence, 
however,  we  are  led  to  a  different  conclusion,  and  find  that  in  relation  to  this 
matter,  he  considers  himself  a  privileged  man.  Listen,  now.  Moderator  for  a 
moment,  and  hear  how  this  hater  of  dictation  can  himself  dictate.  In  Page 
46,  he  gives  utterance  to  the  following  dictatorial  language.  'Were  I  to  offer 
you  my  advice  concerning  the  best  means  of  putting  an  end  to  this  agitation, 
and  the  evils  you  apprehend,  I  would  say,  dig  a  grave,  and  bury  the  whole 
matter  as  quick  as  you  can.'  And  in  Page  51,  he  further  says,  'If  you  say  the 
charge  is  not  sustained,'  (which,  of  course  he  would  advise  us  to  say)  'the 
whole  excitement  of  which  you  complain  in  the  preamble,  will  probably  soon 
die  away,  and  we  shall  soon  see  things  returning  to  the  quietness  of  a  calm. 
We  may  then  go  on  to  co-operate  with  each  other,  in  our  respective 
callings,  and  labour  unitedly  in  building  up  society,  and  promoting  the  welfare 
of  the  Redeemer's  Kingdom.'  In  Page  49.  he  says,  'To  be  put  down  by  dicta- 
tion or  authority,  is  not  my  nature.'  No,  Mr.  Colton:  We  know  it  is  not.  It 
is  much  more  your  nature  to  dictate.  But  who,  Moderator,  has  attempted  to 
put  Mr.  Colton  down,  by  dictation  or  authority?  Surely,  it  was  not  the 
Presbytery;  for,  so  far  were  they  from  this,  that  they  listened  to  his  inflamma- 
tory speeches,  with  a  degree  of  patience  and  forbearance,  truly  astonishing. 

Let  me  give  you,  Moderator,  a  few  more  brief  extracts  from  his  defence, 
illustrative  of  his  predominant  temper,  and  I  have  done.    In  Page  48,  he 


4fr 

makes  a  shew  of  submission  to  those  measures  which  he  has  so  strenuously 
opposed,    on  the  ground  of  their  being  now  settled   by  legal   decision;  but, 
from  the  limits  he  proposes  to  himself,  it  will  be  found,  that  this  is  but  a  mere 
shew  of  submission.     He  says  uThe  measures  of  reform    proposed   by  the 
Old  School  Assembly.  I  have  never  considered  as  settled,  till  the  decision  of 
the  Court  in  Bank,  in  May  last.     That  decision  established  the  character  of 
the  Assembly,   and  of  course,  gave  the  sanction  of  legality   to   their   acts. 
And  shall  that  decision  remain  unaltered,  by  the  decision  of  any  higher  court 
of  review,  the  acts  of  the  Old   School  Assembly  must  be  taken  as  taws,  by 
which  the  church  is  to  be  governed."     Here,  you  perceive,  Moderator,  is  the 
limit  ofhis  submission;  for,  we  are  herein  given  plainly  to  understand,  that, 
should  the  existing  decision  hereafter  be  altered,  by  the  decision  of  a  higher 
court  of  review,  he  will  no  longer  regard,  the  acts  of  the  Old  School  Assembly 
as  laws  by  which  the  church  is  to  be  governed;  and  consequently,  he  will  not 
be  governed,  by  them.     In  Page  51,  he  says,  in  reference  to  the  present  pro- 
cess.    "If  you  say  the  charge  is  sustained,  you  place  all  those  who  differ  in 
opi  iion  from  you.  on  the  defensive,  and  compel  them  to   use  every  possible 
exertion  to  sustain  themselves  before  the  public."     In  Page  53,  speaking  of 
his  publications,  he  thus  boasts  of  their   effects.     "Already,  the   seed  sown 
has  taken  deep  root;  it  will  spring  up — it  will   produce   an  effect,    which  no 
effort  can  restrain."     In  the  same  spirit,  he  thus  expresses  himself  in  his  last 
speech  in  Presbytery,  Pajes  101  and  105.     "Possibly,"  says   he,  "you  have 
expected  I  should  come  before  you,  as  a  high  court,  to  beg  for   mercy.     No, 
Gentlemen,  I  have  done  you  no  wrong.     I  have  offended,  neither  against  the 
law,  nor  against  the  church,  nor  against  Cfesar.     I  am  not  here  as  a  felon, 
to  plead  guilty,  and  sue  for  mercy.     I  am  before  a  court   constituted   of  my 
equals.     I  am  here  with  those,  whom,  notwithstanding  all  that   has  been 
said  to  the  contrary,  I  regard  as  a  party  in  the  case.     I  stand  herewith  my 
accusers,  face  to  face.     No  man  can  look  on  these  proceedings,  and  he  at  a 
loss  whence  all  these  accusations  against  me  originated.  The  miserable  sub- 
terfuge of  putting  forth  Fama  Clamosa.  as  the  scape  goat,  to  bear  all  the 
sins  of  this  trial,  is  u  uvorthy  of  the  high  minded  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ.    It 
shows  a  want  of  courage  to  meet  the  contest,  or  that  the   real    prosecutors 
are  ashamed  to  appear  in  their  appropriate  character."     Moderator,  I  seri- 
ously propose  the  question  to  you,  and  to  my  brethren   of  this    Synod,  is  it 
becoming,  in  a  Presbyterian  Minister,  thus,  not,  only  to  abuse  the  court  be- 
fore whom  he  stands  arraigned,  but  also  to  stigmatize  the   constitution   of 
the  church,  to  which  he  belongs,  and  to  whose  judicatories,  he  is   answera- 
ble for  his  conduct?    In  Page  105,  he  goes  on  to  say,  'I  have,  all  along,  con- 
sidered the  Presbytery  as  a  party.     If  you  say  you  are  not,  why,  then.have 
you  tabled  these  charges?     Why  did  you  not  take  the  ordinary   course  of  a 
court  of  inquiry?'     In  reply.  Moderator,  I  ask,  in  my  turn,  why   is  not   Mr. 
Colton  better  acquainted  with  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church? 
He  concludes  his  last  speech,  in  the  following  language,  Page  105  and  106. 
'All  I  ask  of  you,  gentlemen,  is,  that  you  give  a   decision  founded   on  evi- 
dence, on  such  evidence  as  you  would  take  to  guide  your  proceedings,  were 
you  sitting  as  jurors  under  a  solemn  oath,  on  a  trial,    involving  the  life  of  a 
fellow  being.     I  ask,  that  you  will  be  guided  by  the  eternal  principles  of  jus- 
tice, laid  down  in  the  Bible,  and  drawn  out  into  practice,  in  the  COMMON 
LAW  of  the  land.    A  decision,  founded  on  such  principles,  and  an  evidence 
according  to  their  principles,  is  all  I  ask;  and  such  a  decision,  I  trust,  you 
will  have  the  magnanimity  to  give.'     Yes,  Sir,  for  once  at  least,  in  his  life 
he  acted  wisely,  in  making  his  appeal  to  our  magnanimity;  for,  to  shew  him 
any  clemency  or  mercy,  after  the  anterperation  and  abuse,  in  which  he  has 


41 

so  liberally  indulged  himself,  does  indeed  require  a  degree  of  forbearance,  to 
which  he  can  have  no  just  claim,  and  which  can  only  be  the  result  of  genu- 
ine christian  magnanimity. 

Thus,  Moderator,  have  I  endeavored,  by  taking  a  plain,  common  sense 
view  of  these  productions  of  the  Rev.  Simeon  Colton's  pen,  to  ascertain,  and 
exhibit  before  this  Synod,  their  true  character:  and  I  persuade  myself,  that  I 
have  presented !  sufficient  evidence, not  or'y  of  the  fact,  that  he  has  'given 
i^i-rericy 'to  allegations  of  a  false  and  slanderous  nature,  against  the  church, 
;.ivi  duly  'constituted authorities,  having  a  tendency  to  bring  the  church  and 
i  i er  office  bearers  generally,  into  public  disrepute;"  but,  moreover,  that  his 
.vhole  demeanor,  during  the  progress  of  this  painful  trial,  has  been  marked, 
by  such  an  unbecoming,  unsubdued,  unhumbledj  unhallowed  and  contuma- 
cious spirit,  as  imperiously  demand  of  this  Reverend  Synod  tosubjeet  him, 
to  that  wholesome  discipline,  provided  by  the  church,  for  the  correction  of 
those  who  have  offended  against  her  laws.  I  pray  God,  that  this  whole  af- 
fair may  terminate  in  the  adoption  of  such  measures,  as  He  may  bless,  for 
the  promotion  of  his  own  declarative  glory,  the  effectual  conviction,  reforma- 
tion, arid  return  to  duty,  to  comfort  and  to  usefulness  of  the  brother  who 
now  sf  nds  at  our  bar,  and  the  ultimate  purity,  spiritual  prosperity,  united 
h •->  mony,  p  -d  permanent  peace  of  our  beloved  Ziort. 


i 


